Matter of Karina J.M. (Carmen Enid G.)
145 A.D.3d 893
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2016Background
- Two related Family Court proceedings sought to terminate Carmen Enid G.’s parental rights to two children; the petitions were brought by St. Vincent’s Services, Inc. (now HeartShare St. Vincent’s Services) and the Commissioner of Social Services of NYC.
- The petitioner’s first termination petition was dismissed by the Family Court because it failed to prove it had exercised diligent efforts to reunify the mother and children.
- The petitioner filed a second petition covering a later, distinct 16-month period; the Family Court conducted fact‑finding and dispositional hearings on the second petition.
- During the 16‑month period at issue, the agency scheduled over 100 visitation sessions for the mother, who attended fewer than half and provided largely non‑credible explanations for most absences.
- The Family Court found that the agency made diligent efforts to assist the mother in maintaining contact, and concluded by clear and convincing evidence that the mother permanently neglected the children.
- At disposition, the Family Court determined by a preponderance of the evidence that terminating the mother’s parental rights and freeing the children for adoption by their foster parents was in the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency showed diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent‑child relationship during the relevant 1‑year period | Agency: It scheduled extensive services and over 100 visits and assisted the mother in attending | Mother: Prior dismissal of earlier petition shows agency failed to exercise diligent efforts (preclusive) | Court: Earlier dismissal not preclusive; second petition covers a different time period and may be based on later efforts and evidence |
| Whether the mother’s failure to maintain contact supports a finding of permanent neglect | Agency: Mother attended fewer than half of visits despite assistance; lacked credible excuses | Mother: Argued insufficient assistance and other explanations for missed visits | Court: Mother’s repeated nonattendance despite agency’s diligent efforts satisfied permanent neglect standard under Social Services Law §384‑b |
| Whether termination of parental rights was in children’s best interests at disposition | Agency/children’s attorney: Foster parents wish to adopt; stability and bonding favor termination | Mother: Implicitly argued against termination given desire to regain custody | Court: By preponderance, termination and freeing for adoption served children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136 (establishes agency's duty to exercise diligent efforts to strengthen parent‑child relationship)
- Matter of Jamie M., 63 N.Y.2d 388 (parents must assume initiative; agency need not guarantee success)
- Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368 (agency not required to guarantee parental success)
- Matter of Hailey ZZ. [Ricky ZZ.], 19 N.Y.3d 422 (threshold inquiry on diligent efforts)
- Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 N.Y.2d 838 (parents must correct conditions leading to removal)
- Matter of Omarie S.B. [Evan J.], 137 A.D.3d 902 (standard for permanent neglect finding)
- Matter of Elasia A.D.B. [Crystal D.G.], 118 A.D.3d 778 (agency diligence and parental responsibility)
- Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 A.D.3d 1087 (parents must take corrective steps)
- Matter of Anais Maria O. [Jose Manuel O.], 134 A.D.3d 1040 (failure to maintain contact supports permanent neglect)
- Matter of Emily A., 216 A.D.2d 124 (same)