St. Lawrence Cty. Dep't of Soc. Serv. v. Katrina M. (In re Drey L.)

210 N.Y.S.3d 352

In the MATTER OF DREY L. and Others, Alleged to be Permanently Neglected Children.

St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services, Respondent;

v.Katrina M., Appellant.

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

Calendar Date: March 28, 2024

Decided and Entered: May 2, 2024

Lisa A. Burgess, Indian Lake, for appellant.

Stephen D. Button, County Attorney, Canton (Keith S. Massey Jr. of counsel), for St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services, respondent.

Barbara Ann Montena, Saratoga Springs, for Thomas K., respondent.

Reginald H. Bedell, Willsboro, attorney for the children.

Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Fisher, McShan and Powers, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Fisher, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Andrew S. Moses, J.), entered July 8, 2022, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, to adjudicate the subject children to be permanently neglected, and terminated respondent’s parental rights.

[1] Respondent is the mother of four children (bom in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014). In November 2017, the children were removed from the care and custody of respondent and, based on their needs, placed with either a foster family or in a residential treatment facility, where they have resided ever since. In March 2021, petitioner filed a petition to terminate respondent’s parental rights on the basis of permanent neglect. Following fact-finding and dispositional hearings, Family Court found that the children were permanently neglected and terminated respondent’s parental rights.¹ Respondent appeals.

[2, 3] We affirm. In a permanent neglect proceeding, the petitioning agency must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that it made "diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship" and that the parent failed to adequately "plan for the future of the childr[en]," despite being able to do so (Social Services Law § 384–b [7][a]; see Matter of Nevaeh N. [Heidi O.], 220 A.D.3d 1070, 1070, 197 N.Y.S.3d 749 [3d Dept. 2023], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 903, 2024 WL 1097743 [2024]; Matter of Harmony F. [William F.], 212 A.D.3d 1028, 1029, 181 N.Y.S.3d 403 [3d Dept. 2023]). "Diligent efforts means reasonable attempts by an authorized agency to assist, develop and encourage a meaningful relationship between the parent and childr[en]" (Matter of Issac Q. [Kimberly R.], 212 A.D.3d 1049, 1050–1051, 182 N.Y.S.3d 362 [3d Dept. 2023] [internal quotation marks, brackets and ellipsis omitted]), lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 913, 2023 WL 3512992 [2023]; accord Social Services Law § 384–b [7][f]), which includes "assisting the parent with visitation, providing information on the child[ren]’s progress and development, and offering counseling and other appropriate educational and therapeutic programs and services" (Matter of Zaiden P. [Ashley Q.], 211 A.D.3d 1348, 1351-1352, 180 N.Y.S.3d 661 [3d Dept. 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lvs denied 39 N.Y.3d 911, 2023 WL 3011826, 2023 WL 3011839 [2023]). "The petitioning agency will be deemed to have fulfilled that obligation if appropriate services are offered but the parent refuses to engage in them or does not progress" (Matter of Issac Q. [Kimberly R.], 212 A.D.3d at 1051, 182 N.Y.S.3d 362 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]).

[4] Here, the fact-finding hearing testimony demonstrates that petitioner arranged counseling for mental health and substance abuse issues, a peer advocate, caseworker visits and scheduled therapeutic visitation between the children and respondent, For the relevant time period between February 2020 through February 2021, a caseworker testified that respondent attended her mental health classes and chemical dependency appointments, but that she had relapsed in February 2020 requiring in-patient treatment and subsequently tested positive for cocaine on one occasion as a result of that relapse. The caseworker further testified that she remained in regular contact with respondent’s counselors, including the peer advocate assisting respondent, but had difficulty meeting with respondent for monthly caseworker visits. Specifically, the caseworker testified that she was unable to meet with respondent on several occasions during the relevant time period – including multiple attempts in a row when respondent had previously confirmed the appointment but was not home at the time of the visit. According to the caseworker, August 2020 was the last time that she was able to meet with respondent before the filing of the petition in March 2021. Both the caseworker and a licensed clinical social worker, who served as a therapist during therapeutic visitation between respondent and the children, testified that respondent did not regularly attend visitation. According to the social worker, between April 2020 and October 2020, the mother attended two telephone visits and one virtual visit with the children. For her part, respondent’s testimony generally corroborated that of the caseworker and the social worker, further admitting that she missed five or six meetings with the caseworker and another five or six scheduled visits with her children during the relevant time period. Although the appel- late attorney for the children contends that the record does not adequately explain why petitioner did not fully explore the option to reschedule such missed meetings or visits, the record also reveals that respondent had confirmed her availability prior to the appointment being scheduled and did not consistently notify anyone in advance that she was no longer able to meet. Based on the foregoing, we are satisfied that petitioner met its threshold burden (see Matter of Nevaeh N. [Heidi O.], 220 A.D.3d at 1071, 197 N.Y.S.3d 749; Matter of Zaiden P. [Ashley Q.], 211 A.D.3d at 1352–1353, 180 N.Y.S.3d 661; Matter of Leon YY. [Christopher ZZ.], 206 A.D.3d 1093, 1095–1096, 168 N.Y.S.3d 737 [3d Dept. 2022]).

[5] Similarly, although not challenged by respondent, we conclude that petitioner satisfied its burden in proving that respondent "failed to substantially plan for the children’s future by taking meaningful steps to correct the conditions that led to their removal" (Matter of Chloe B. [Sareena B.], 189 A.D.3d 2011, 2013, 137 N.Y.S.3d 592 [3d Dept. 2020]). The record reflects that respondent had not met with the caseworker since August 2020, therefore not allowing the caseworker to visit and evaluate the suitability of respondent’s home environment for the children. As it specifically related to respondent’s intentions to have all four children returned to her, the record demonstrates that her proposed living arrangements failed to consider several medical, psychiatric, psychological and other social and rehabilitative needs that each child required – a point that she conceded during the hearing (see Matter of Issac Q. [Kimberly R.], 212 A.D.3d at 1051, 182 N.Y.S.3d 362; Matter of Harmony F. [William F.], 212 A.D.3d at 1031–1032, 181 N.Y.S.3d...