E., ALISA, MTR. OF ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    134
    CAF 12-01140
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ.
    IN THE MATTER OF ALISA E.
    ------------------------------------------------
    LIVINGSTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,   MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    PETITIONER-RESPONDENT;
    WENDY F., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
    CHARLES J. GREENBERG, AMHERST, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
    DAVID J. MORRIS, COUNTY ATTORNEY, GENESEO (WENDY S. SISSON OF
    COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
    CHARLES PLOVANICH, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, ROCHESTER.
    Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Livingston County
    (Robert B. Wiggins, J.), entered June 8, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant
    to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, among other things,
    revoked a suspended judgment and terminated respondent’s parental
    rights with respect to the subject child.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed without costs.
    Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order revoking a
    suspended judgment pursuant to Family Court Act § 633 and terminating
    her parental rights with respect to her daughter. Contrary to the
    mother’s contention, petitioner established by a preponderance of the
    evidence that the mother violated the terms and conditions of the
    suspended judgment (see Matter of Giovanni K. [Dawn K.], 68 AD3d 1766,
    1767-1768, lv denied 14 NY3d 707). Petitioner established that the
    mother failed to obtain suitable housing until after the violation
    petition was filed and that she withdrew or limited releases for
    information from programs that she attended. Although the mother
    testified that she had completed several programs, she failed to
    provide verification that she completed the programs and admitted that
    she did not know whether petitioner had approved those programs.
    Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the
    mother continued to live at her parents’ house, to which petitioner
    had been denied access to make an assessment of whether it would be an
    appropriate home for the child to visit, and we note that Family
    Court’s determination that the mother’s testimony that she was living
    in the apartment that she rented was not credible is entitled to great
    weight (see Matter of Baron C. [Dominique C.], 101 AD3d 1622, 1622).
    It is well established that a hearing on a petition alleging that the
    -2-                           134
    CAF 12-01140
    terms of a suspended judgment have been violated is part of the
    dispositional phase of the permanent neglect proceeding, and that the
    disposition shall be based on the best interests of the child (see
    Matter of Richelis S. [Richard S.], 68 AD3d 1643, 1644-1645, appeal
    dismissed 14 NY3d 767). We conclude that the record supports the
    court’s determination that termination of the mother’s rights is in
    the best interests of the child (see Matter of Mercedes L. [Constance
    L.], 12 AD3d 1184, 1184).
    Entered:   February 7, 2014                    Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CAF 12-01140

Filed Date: 2/7/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016