Heartshare St. Vincent's Servs. v. Nadine B. (In re Tai–Gi K. Q.-N. B..)

179 A.D.3d 1056

118 N.Y.S.3d 641

In the MATTER OF TAI–GI K. Q.-N. B. (Anonymous).

Heartshare St. Vincent's Services, Respondent;

v.Nadine B. (Anonymous), Appellant.

2019–01966

Docket No. B–15886–17

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—December 10, 2019

January 29, 2020

Center for Family Representation, Inc., New York, N.Y. (Emily S. Wall, Michele Cortese, and Vasilios Stotis of counsel), for appellant.

Wingate Kearney & Cullen, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Claire Steinman of counsel), for respondent.

Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Dawne Mitchell and Patricia Colella of counsel), attorney for the child.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Diane Costanzo, J.), dated January 14, 2019. The order, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the mother permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to the petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.

ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is reversed, on the facts, without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The subject child, who was born on January 15, 2012, entered foster care on June 15, 2012, based on allegations that starting when he was four days old, the mother left him with a neighbor for five months without making a plan for his care or providing any provisions, financial assistance, or contact information. On August 7, 2017, the petitioner commenced this proceeding to terminate the mother's parental rights, alleging that the child was permanently neglected. By proceeding on this ground, the petitioner was obligated to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother "failed for a period of either at least one year or fifteen out of the most recent twenty-two months following the date [the] child came into the [petitioner's] care ... substantially and continuously or repeatedly to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child, although physically and financially able to do so, notwithstanding the [petitioner's] diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship when such efforts [would] not be detrimental to the best interests of the child" ( Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a] ).

The evidence at the fact-finding hearing established that in May 2016, the mother had adequate housing for the child, that in June 2016, she had completed her service plan and was having unsupervised parental access with the child, and...