In re Aparicio Rodrigo B.
Matter of Aparicio
Rodrigo B.
2006 NY Slip Op 03631
Decided on May 9,
2006
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 9,
2006
Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Williams,
Sweeny, McGuire, JJ.
8471- 8471A
[*1]In re Aparicio Rodrigo B. and
Another, Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Asuncion B., et al.,
Respondents-Appellants, Miracle Makers, Inc., Petitioner-Respondent. George E. Reed, Jr., White
Plains, for Asuncion B.,
appellant. Kenneth M. Tuccillo,
Hastings-on-Hudson, for Elsa M., appellant. Raymond L. Colon, New York,
for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler,
The Legal Aid Society, New York (Daniel Greenbaum of counsel), Law
Guardian.
Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sara
P. Schechter, J.), entered August 17, 2004, upon a
finding that respondents had violated a suspended judgment, terminating
respondents' parental rights to the subject children and committing the
children's guardianship and custody to petitioner agency and the Commissioner
of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without
costs.
The updated minutes indicate that new counsel had been
assigned no later than April 11, 2002,
only eight days after Family Court was advised that prior counsel was no longer
a member of the panel and more than a month before the May 15 proceedings at
which respondent admitted to permanent neglect and agreed to the suspended
judgment. The same minutes also indicate that a Spanish language interpreter was
present at the May 15 proceedings. Accordingly, there is no factual basis for
the mother's contentions that she was without counsel for over a month during
which there were three court appearances and the suspended judgment was
drafted, and that her consent to the suspended judgment was not voluntarily and
intelligently made. Respondents' violation of the suspended judgment is
supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Ferdinand V., Jr.,
277 AD2d 133 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 705 [2001]) showing,
inter alia, that they failed to make their apartment
habitable for the children and missed family therapy sessions. Respondents'
violation of the suspended judgment shows that they cannot provide a nurturing,
stable home for the children, and that termination of their parental rights is
in the best interests of the children, who have been in foster care since
birth. Two aspects of Family Court's handling of this matter should be
addressed. First, contrary to Family [*2]Court's
assertion, the petitioning agency is not responsible for obtaining counsel for
parents. Second, the facts essential to its decision must be stated (CPLR
4213[b]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: MAY 9, 2006
CLERK
Return to Appeals list