Decided
on December 24, 2002
Tom, J.P., Andrias, Rosenberger, Friedman, Marlow, JJ.
2669
[*1]In re Guardianship, etc., Tamara Liz H., A Child Under the Age of
Eighteen Years, etc.,
and
Joeanne H., Respondent-Appellant, New Alternatives for Children, Inc., et al.,
Petitioners-Respondents.
Amy Hausknecht
George E. Reed, Jr.
James M. Abramson
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York
County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about July 30, 2001, which, upon a
finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent's parental rights with
respect to the subject child and committed custody and guardianship of the
child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City
of New York for purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of permanent neglect is supported
by clear and convincing evidence that respondent "failed to offer any
resource for the child other than continued foster care for as long as she
remained in prison" (Matter of Ida Jessica H., 289 AD2d 64, citing
Matter of Gregory B. 74 NY2d 77). Although the agency diligently
attempted to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by arranging
for respondent to visit with the child, its efforts were largely unavailing
since respondent was absent without notice from most of the scheduled visits
and was eventually incarcerated at a location impractical for the child, whose
medical and physical condition made her attendance impractical. While the
agency advised respondent respecting developments in the child's medical
condition and informed respondent about the special therapies that she would
require, respondent was unable to provide a viable caretaker resource and
"the Legislature [did not] intend[] to approve a plan of indefinite foster
care for the child of an incarcerated parent who is serving a lengthy prison
term and who cannot provide the child with an alternative living
arrangement" (Gregory B., 74 [*2]NY2d
at 89).
The requisite preponderance of the evidence
supported Family Court's conclusion that termination of respondent's parental
rights so as to free the child for adoption is in the child's best interests (see
Ida Jessica H., supra).
Respondent's remaining argument respecting
the adequacy of her representation in this matter in light of the assertedly
constitutionally inadequate compensation available to her assigned counsel is
unpreserved and we do not reach it. It may be noted, however, that respondent
does not dispute the agency's and the Law Guardian's position that the record
demonstrates that respondent's trial counsel diligently and zealously defended
respondent (see Matter of Donald P., 285 AD2d 510, lv denied
97 NY2d 603).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: DECEMBER 24, 2002
CLERK