In re Ramel H.
In the Matter of RAMEL H., an Infant. ONEIDA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent; TENESE T., Appellant. [23 NYS3d 782]—
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Randal B. Caldwell, J.), entered March 5, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this permanent neglect proceeding, Family Court entered a suspended judgment following respondent mother‘s admission to permanent neglect of the subject child. The court, inter alia, placed the child in foster care and issued an order of supervision directing the mother to comply with certain terms and conditions of the suspended judgment. Prior to the scheduled termination of the suspended judgment, the court released the child from the foster care placement and ordered him to be returned to the mother‘s care, but directed that the suspended judgment and order of supervision continue and that the mother comply with its terms until it expired. Petitioner thereafter moved to revoke the suspended judgment, and the mother appeals from an order that, among other things, granted petitioner‘s motion and terminated her parental rights with respect to the subject child.
The mother initially contends that, by terminating the subject child‘s placement in foster care and returning him to her custody, the court thereby also terminated the suspended judgment, which in turn divested the court of jurisdiction over the petition to terminate her parental rights. Even assuming, arguendo, that the mother preserved her contention for our review (see generally Matter of Imani J., 29 AD3d 467, 467 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 842 [2006], cert denied 549 US 1228 [2007]), we conclude that the applicable statute provides that, after placing a child in foster care, “the court shall maintain jurisdiction over the case until the child is discharged from placement and all orders regarding supervision, protection or services have expired” (
We reject the mother‘s further contention that the court erred in revoking the suspended judgment and terminating her parental rights. Where petitioner establishes “by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been noncompliance with any of the terms of the suspended judgment, the court may revoke the suspended judgment and terminate parental rights” (Matter of Ronald O., 43 AD3d 1351, 1352 [2007]; see
Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Peradotto and Carni, JJ.