In re Imani J.
Matter of Imani
J. v Monique J.
2006 NY Slip Op 04166
Decided on
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
Sullivan, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Catterson,
McGuire, JJ.
8602- 8602A
[*1]In re Imani J., A Dependent
Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,
and
Monique J., Respondent-Appellant,
Children's Aid Society, et al., Petitioners-Respondents. George E. Reed, Jr.,
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sara P.
Schechter, J.), entered on or about May 13, 2004,
which revoked a suspended judgment for noncompliance and terminated respondent
mother's parental rights to the subject child upon her admission of permanent
neglect, committing the child's custody and guardianship to petitioner agency
and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose
of adoption, and order, same court and Judge, entered on or about April 7,
2005, which denied respondent's CPLR 5015 motion, unanimously affirmed, without
costs.
A preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court's
finding that respondent did not adhere to the conditions upon which an earlier
judgment, finding her to have permanently neglected the subject child, had been
suspended (see Matter of Vanessa R., 249 AD2d 27 [1998]). Respondent's
unwillingness to seek psychotherapy, as well as her instability and immaturity
with respect to the discharge of her parental obligations, amply support the
conclusion that the interests of the child, who has spent virtually her entire
life in foster care, would best be served by the termination of respondent's
parental rights.
Even assuming respondent's subject-matter jurisdiction and
constitutional claims were properly preserved by her CPLR 5015 motion, they are
without merit. The Family Court is vested with exclusive, original jurisdiction
to hear proceedings commenced by petitions alleging neglect (Family Court Act §
115[a][i]) and seeking
termination of custody by reason of permanent neglect [*2]
(§ 115[a][iv]; see e.g. Matter of Jocolyn Marie A., 189 AD2d 702 [1993]), lv
denied 81 NY2d 708 [1993]). Nor was respondent denied due process in this
instance. The record shows that she was ably represented by a court-appointed
attorney and a Guardian Ad Litem until she reached
the age of majority. Furthermore, respondent's argument predicated on the
Eighth Amendment ignores the reality that proceedings brought pursuant to
Social Services Law § 384-b(1) are not punitive in
nature, but rather are designed to address the needs and welfare of children.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED:
CLERK