Matter of Aliyah Julia N. (Cecelia Lee N.)

Matter of Aliyah Julia N. v Cecelia Lee N. 2011 NY Slip Op 01132 Decided on February 17, 2011 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 February 17, 2011
Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
4295

[*1]In re Aliyah Julia N., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,

and

Cecelia Lee N., Respondent-Appellant, Harlem Dowling-Westside Center, Petitioner-Respondent.




Julian A. Hertz, Larchmont, for appellant.
Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York (Dawn
M. Orsatti of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith
Waksberg of counsel), and Proskauer Rose LLP, New York
(Theodore K. Cheng of counsel), attorneys for the child.

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about November 13, 2009, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect against respondent mother, terminated respondent's parental rights to the subject child and transferred the custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed as to the fact-finding determination, and the appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed, without costs.

The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence that the agency made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, including working with respondent to formulate a service plan, maintaining frequent contact with her, scheduling visits with the child, and referring respondent for, inter alia, parenting skills classes and domestic violence counseling, and that, despite these efforts, respondent failed to complete the necessary programs and maintain meaningful contact with the child and plan for the child's future (Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a], [f]; § 384-b[3][g][i]; Matter of Aisha C., 58 AD3d 471 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 706 [2009]). "[T]he agency is not charged with a guarantee that the parent succeed in overcoming his or her predicaments" (Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 385 [1984]).

Respondent did not appear at the dispositional hearing and did not move to vacate her default. No appeal lies from an order entered on default (see Matter of Joei R., 302 AD2d 334 [2003]; lv dismissed in part, denied in part 100 NY2d 575 [2003]). Were we to reach the merits, we would find that the child's best interests will be served by the termination of respondent's
parental rights and the child's adoption by the foster mother who has provided her with excellent [*2]care, and not by a suspended
judgment (see Matter of Isabella Star G., 66 AD3d 536 [2009]).

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

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 17, 2011

CLERK