Matter of Brandon R. (Chrystal R.)

Matter of Matter of Brandon R. (Chrystal R.) 2012 NY Slip Op 03889 Decided on May 17, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 17, 2012
Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz, Acosta, JJ.
7821

[*1]In re Brandon R., etc., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,

and

Chrystal R., etc., Respondent-Appellant, The Children's Aid Society, Petitioner-Respondent.




Morningside Heights Legal Services, Inc., New York (Philip M.
Genty of counsel), for appellant.
Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of
counsel), for respondent.
Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York
(Brenda Soloff of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about December 14, 2010, which, following a fact-finding hearing, determined that respondent mother permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parental rights to the child, and transferred custody and guardianship to petitioner and the Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record amply demonstrates the diligent efforts by petitioner agency to assist respondent in overcoming her lifelong drug abuse problems, including repeated relapses, mental health concerns, and resistance to the Agency's efforts (see Matter of Sheila G, 61 NY2d 368, 385 [1984]). The record also amply demonstrates that respondent permanently neglected the child by her failure to plan for his future. Respondent's drug addiction and antisocial personality disorder impeded her ability to care for the child, who has profound special needs, and she admitted that she regularly sent him to school dirty, unkempt, smelling of urine, and with a sore on his head, when he was in her care.

The court properly determined that it is in the child's best interests to terminate [*2]respondent's parental rights given her inability to overcome her deficiencies as a parent in the approximately three years since placement.

We have considered respondent's additional arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MAY 17, 2012

CLERK