Dutchess County Department of Social Services v. Kenneth D.Dutchess County Department of Social Services v. Kenneth D.
—In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights based upon permanent neglect, the parents separately appeal from so much of a dispositional order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), entered April 27, 1993, as, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated August 4, 1992, which, after a hearing, found, inter alia, that their daughters, Tina and Teri, had been permanently neglected, and upon a derivative finding of permanent neglect of their son Kenneth, Jr., terminated their parental rights and placed the children with the Commissioner of the Dutchess County Department of Social Services without conditions.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court correctly found that the appellants failed to plan for their children’s future (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [7]). In planning for the children’s future, ''[a]t a minimum, parents must 'take steps to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the child from their home’ ” (Matter of Nathaniel T.,
Here, after the two girls had been removed from the custody of the appellants, the father was found to have sexually abused the oldest. Thereafter, the oldest son was also removed from the appellants’ custody. The Family Court directed the appellants to seek sexual abuse therapy if they wanted to reunite with their children.
Although the father attended therapy sessions, due to his lack of acknowledgment of guilt, the cause of the abuse was never explored and he was unable to gain any insight into his behavior. Because the father failed to make any therapeutic progress, we find that he cannot make an adequate plan for his children’s future (see, Matter of Tammy B., supra; Matter of Travis Lee G.,
The mother failed to attend the recommended counseling, missed 42% of scheduled visits with her children over a 16-month period, and failed to attend several bi-yearly conferences to discuss the future of the children. Thus, the Family Court properly found that the mother failed to adequately plan for her children’s future (see, Matter of Kandu Anthony Y,
Accordingly, it is in the best interests of the children that the appellants’ parental rights be terminated in order to permit the children to be adopted and provided with a stable family life (see, Matter of Sheila G.,