In re Jennifer S.
Matter of Jennifer S. v Elba R.
2009 NY Slip Op 03448
Decided
on April 30, 2009
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 April 30, 2009
Gonzalez,
P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Buckley, Acosta, JJ.
451
[*1]In re Jennifer S., A Dependant Child under the age of Eighteen
Years, etc.
and
Elba R., Respondent-Appellant, mercyFirst,
Petitioner-Respondent.
George E. Reed, Jr.,
Warren
& Warren, P.C.,
respondent.
Tamara
A. Steckler, The Legal Aid
Society,
V. Merkine of counsel), Law
Guardian.
Order,
Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.),
entered on or about November 14, 2007, which adjudicated the subject child
permanently neglected, terminated respondent mother's parental rights, and
committed custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of
the Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption,
unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The
determination of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing
evidence that respondent failed to plan for the child's future, despite
diligent efforts by mercyFirst to encourage and
strengthen the parental relationship (Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a]). MercyFirst maintained frequent contact with respondent,
ensured her participation in scheduled services, and facilitated her visits and
contact with the child. Despite those meaningful agency efforts, respondent
demonstrated a complete lack of insight regarding her parenting deficiencies
and inability to provide the child with a safe and appropriate home (see Matter
of Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d 838 [1986]). A preponderance of the evidence at the
dispositional hearing supported the determination that the best interests of
the child dictated termination of respondent's parental rights, to facilitate
adoption by the child's foster mother, with whom she has developed a close [*2]relationship, and who has tended to her behavioral and
developmental needs (see Matter of Taaliyah Simone
S.D., 28 AD3d 371 [2006]).
THIS
CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF
THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED:
APRIL 30, 2009
CLERK