In re Chelsea C.
Matter of Chelsea C. v Bethania C.
2011
NY Slip Op 03903
Decided
on May 10, 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 May 10, 2011
Mazzarelli,
J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels,
JJ.
[*1]5016-In
re Chelsea C., and Others, 5016A- 5016B-Dependent Children Under the Age
5016Cof Eighteen Years, etc.,
and
Bethania C., etc., Respondent-Appellant, The Children's Aid Society, Petitioner-Respondent.
George E. Reed, Jr.,
Rosin,
counsel), for respondent.
Tamara
A. Steckler, The Legal Aid
Society,
Egger of counsel), attorney for the child Chelsea C.
Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, P.C., Syosset (Randall S.
Courtney
C., and Richard C.
Orders
of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on
or about May 6, 2009, which, upon a fact-finding of permanent neglect, terminated
respondent's parental rights to the subject children and committed custody and
guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the
Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously
affirmed, without costs.
The
agency demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that it exerted diligent
efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by referring
respondent for appropriate therapy and a parenting skills class in her native
language (see Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 381 [1984]). Respondent, a
non-offender coping with sexual abuse, elected to ignore the court's directive
that she be referred for counseling with a therapist trained in sexual abuse
cases and instead selected a therapist with limited training in that area. She
also chose to attend a parenting skills class in English, although she required
a Spanish translator in court proceedings. Respondent failed to demonstrate
that she took reasonable steps to correct the conditions that led to the
children's placement (see Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d 838, 840 [1986]).
Indeed, she admitted that she rejected the agency's referrals and did not
commence therapy until more than a year after the children were removed from
her home.
The
record supports the court's determination that the best interests of the
children would be served by terminating respondent's parental rights and
freeing the children for adoption (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136,
147-148 [1984]). All the children have been doing well in foster homes, where
they have resided for several years. All stated that they do not want [*2]contact with respondent, who had adopted them. Three of the
children want to be adopted by their foster parents, who want to adopt them,
and the fourth child, who was 17 and had reestablished contact with her
biological family, stated that she wanted to remain in the foster home until
she reached her majority. A suspended judgment would not be in the children's
best interests (see Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299, 310
[1992]).
THIS
CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF
THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED:
MAY 10, 2011
CLERK