In re Jeovonni G.
Matter
of Jeovonni G. (Victoria V.)
2012
NY Slip Op 08428 [101 AD3d 449]
December
6, 2012
Appellate
Division, First Department
Published
by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As
corrected through Wednesday, February 6, 2013
In
the Matter of Jeovonni G., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected.
Victoria V., Appellant; Catholic Guardian Society and Home Bureau, Respondent,
et al., Petitioner.
—[*1]
George
E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, for appellant.
Magovern
& Sclafani, New York (Joanna M. Roberson of counsel), for respondent.
Karen
Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Shirim Nothenberg of counsel),
attorney for the child.
Order
of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or
about January 12, 2012, which, following a fact-finding determination that
respondent mother had permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her
parental rights, and committed custody and guardianship of the child to
petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of
adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The
court providently exercised its discretion in denying respondent's request for
an adjournment, given that she had more than three months to communicate with
her counsel and prepare for the fact-finding hearing (Matter of Steven B., 6
NY3d 888, 889 [2006]).
The
finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence (see
Social Services Law § 384-b [3] [g] [i]; [7] [a]). There is clear and
convincing evidence that the agency exercised diligent efforts to reunite
respondent and the child by preparing a service plan, scheduling visits between
respondent and the child, referring respondent to parenting skills classes, and
conducting meetings and case conferences with respondent (see Matter of Jamal
N. [Shanikqua N.], 89 AD3d 537, 538 [1st Dept 2011]). There is also clear and
convincing evidence that, despite the agency's diligent efforts, respondent
failed to visit the child on a regular and consistent basis, complete a
parenting skills program, and permit the agency to obtain information
concerning her medication (id.).
A
preponderance of the evidence supports the finding that it is in the child's
best interests [*2]to terminate respondent's parental rights so as to free the
child for adoption (Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). The
record shows that the child has resided with his foster parents since
placement, and that they have been able to care for his special needs.
Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and Feinman, JJ.