In re Jonathan P.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Ray, J.), entered Novеmber 29, 1999, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, to revoke a suspended judgment and, inter alia, terminated respondent’s parental rights.
In December 1996, respondent’s 11-month-old child was removed and placed in the custody of pеtitioner due to the alleged severe alcohol addiction of respondent Rebecca Q. (hereinafter respondent). Pursuant to Family Court Act § 1021, respоndent voluntarily signed a consent to protective removal. At her initial appearance in the ensuing neglect proceeding, respondent voluntarily аdmitted, inter alia, that she was an alcoholic who recently relapsed into her addictive behavior. Based thereon, Family Court entered a finding of neglect. Respоndent waived her right to a dispositional hearing and entered into a stipulation whiсh, inter alia, included the completion of substance abuse treatment.
On February 26, 1999, petitioner filed a permanent neglect petition. Again, on her initial appearance, respondent admitted that she did not plan for the child’s return home, that she refused to attend an inpatient alcohol rehabilitation program (although petitioner had made the necessary arrangements for her entry into such program) and that petitioner had made diligent efforts to reunite the family. These admissions formed the basis for Family Court’s adjudication of permanеnt neglect.
Approximately six weeks thereafter, petitioner sоught revocation of the suspended judgment based on respondent’s refusal to еnter and complete the inpatient alcohol treatment program. Fоllowing a fact-finding hearing, Family Court revoked the suspended judgment and terminated resрondent’s parental rights, finding that petitioner had established by a preponderаnce of the evidence that respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the suspended judgment. Respondent appeals.
We affirm. The purpose of suspending judgment is to provide a parent who has been found to have permanently neglected his or her child with a grace period within which he or she can take steps to become a fit parent to be reunited with his or her child (see, Matter of Michael B.,
On this appeаl, respondent argues, in essence, that she should be given a second opportunity to comply with the terms of the suspended judgment because she perceived the personnel at the alcohol rehabilitation program, at the initiаl interview, were abusive toward her. We find no merit to this argument since the record reveals no evidence, other than her own testimony, of such abusive conduct. Mоreover, the record reveals that she made no complaint of such abusiveness to petitioner nor did she seek court relief with respect to this particular condition of the suspended judgment. On the contrary, the record reveals that the child was removed from her home because she could not adequately care for the child due to her untreated alcoholism, which condition rеmained untreated at the time of the hearing.
Crew III, J. P., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.