record of the dispositional hearing in New York

2016On appeal, the mother does not challenge Family Court’s determination that she permanently neglected the subject children, and the record of the dispositional hearing supports the court’s determination that the best interests of the children would be served by terminating the mother’s parental rights and freeing them for adoption (see Matter of La’Derrick J.W. [Ashley W.], 85 AD3d 1600, 1602 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 709 [2011]; Matter of Eleydie R. [Maria R.], 77 AD3d 1423, 1424 [2010]).

2015The mother admitted that she permanently neglected the children, and the record of the dispositional hearing supports the court’s determination that the best interests of the children would be served by terminating the mother’s parental rights and freeing the children for adoption (see Matter of La’Derrick J.W. [Ashley W.], 85 AD3d 1600, 1602 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 709 [2011]; Matter of Eleydie R. [Maria R.], 77 AD3d 1423, 1424 [2010]).

2016On appeal, the mother does not challenge Family Court’s determination that she permanently neglected the subject children, and the record of the dispositional hearing supports the court’s determination that the best interests of the children would be served by terminating the mother’s parental rights and freeing them for adoption (see Matter of La’Derrick J.W. [Ashley W.], 85 AD3d 1600, 1602 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 709 [2011]; Matter of Eleydie R. [Maria R.], 77 AD3d 1423, 1424 [2010]).

2015The mother admitted that she permanently neglected the children, and the record of the dispositional hearing supports the court’s determination that the best interests of the children would be served by terminating the mother’s parental rights and freeing the children for adoption (see Matter of La’Derrick J.W. [Ashley W.], 85 AD3d 1600, 1602 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 709 [2011]; Matter of Eleydie R. [Maria R.], 77 AD3d 1423, 1424 [2010]).

2017Although the father requested a suspended judgment at the dispositional hearing and thus preserved for our review his contention that Family Court erred in failing to grant that relief, we reject that contention inasmuch as the record of the dispositional hearing establishes that “any progress that [the father] made ‘was not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the child [ren’s] unsettled familial status’ ” (Matter of Jose R., 32 AD3d 1284, 1285 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 718 [2006]; see Matter of Kyla E. [Stephanie E], 126 AD3d 1385 , 1386 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 910 [2015]).

2017Although the father requested a suspended judgment at the dispositional hearing and thus preserved for our review his contention that Family Court erred in failing to grant that relief, we reject that contention inasmuch as the record of the dispositional hearing establishes that “any progress that [the father] made ‘was not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the child [ren’s] unsettled familial status’ ” (Matter of Jose R., 32 AD3d 1284, 1285 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 718 [2006]; see Matter of Kyla E. [Stephanie E], 126 AD3d 1385 , 1386 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 910 [2015]).

2017Although the father requested a suspended judgment at the dispositional hearing and thus preserved for our review his contention that Family Court erred in failing to grant that relief, we reject that contention inasmuch as the record of the dispositional hearing establishes that “any progress that [the father] made ‘was not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the child [ren’s] unsettled familial status’ ” (Matter of Jose R., 32 AD3d 1284, 1285 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 718 [2006]; see Matter of Kyla E. [Stephanie E], 126 AD3d 1385 , 1386 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 910 [2015]).

2017Although the father requested a suspended judgment at the dispositional hearing and thus preserved for our review his contention that Family Court erred in failing to grant that relief, we reject that contention inasmuch as the record of the dispositional hearing establishes that “any progress that [the father] made ‘was not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the child [ren’s] unsettled familial status’ ” (Matter of Jose R., 32 AD3d 1284, 1285 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 718 [2006]; see Matter of Kyla E. [Stephanie E], 126 AD3d 1385 , 1386 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 910 [2015]).

2017Finally, to the extent that the father contends that the court improperly admitted in evidence records containing hearsay statements, we conclude that any such error is harmless “ ‘because the result reached herein would have been the same even had such [statements] been excluded,’ ” and “ ‘[t]here is no indication that the court considered, credited, or relied upon inadmissible hearsay in reaching its determination’ ” (Kyla E., 126 AD3d at 1386).

2017Finally, to the extent that the father contends that the court improperly admitted in evidence records containing hearsay statements, we conclude that any such error is harmless “ ‘because the result reached herein would have been the same even had such [statements] been excluded,’ ” and “ ‘[t]here is no indication that the court considered, credited, or relied upon inadmissible hearsay in reaching its determination’ ” (Kyla E., 126 AD3d at 1386).

2015Respondents admitted that they permanently neglected their respective children, and the record of the dispositional hearing supports the court’s determination that the best interests of the children would be served by terminating respondents’ respective parental rights and freeing the children for adoption (see Matter of La'Derrick J.W. [Ashley W.], 85 AD3d 1600, 1602 , lv denied 17 NY3d 709 ; Matter of Eleydie R. [Maria R.], 77 AD3d 1423, 1424 ). -2- 1400 CAF 14-00970, CAF 14-01081 Contrary to the mother’s contention in both appeals, the record supports the court’s determination that a suspen

2015Contrary to the mother’s contention in both appeals, the record supports the court’s determination that a suspended judgment would not serve the best interests of the children (see Matter of Alex C., Jr. [Alex C., Sr.], 114 AD3d 1149 , 1150 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 901 [2014]; Matter of Tiara B. [Torrence B.], 70 AD3d 1307, 1307-1308 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 709 [2010]; see generally Matter of Mercedes L., 12 AD3d 1184, 1185 [2004]; Matter of Saboor C., 303 AD2d 1022 , 1023 [2003]).

2015Lastly, we reject the mother’s contention that she was denied effective assistance of counsel “inasmuch as [she] did not demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s alleged shortcomings” (Matter of Brown v Gandy, 125 AD3d 1389, 1390 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2015Lastly, we reject the mother’s contention that she was denied effective assistance of counsel “inasmuch as [she] did not demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s alleged shortcomings” (Matter of Brown v Gandy, 125 AD3d 1389, 1390 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2015Respondents admitted that they permanently neglected their respective children, and the record of the dispositional hearing supports the court’s determination that the best interests of the children would be served by terminating respondents’ respective parental rights and freeing the children for adoption (see Matter of La'Derrick J.W. [Ashley W.], 85 AD3d 1600, 1602 , lv denied 17 NY3d 709 ; Matter of Eleydie R. [Maria R.], 77 AD3d 1423, 1424 ). -2- 1400 CAF 14-00970, CAF 14-01081 Contrary to the mother’s contention in both appeals, the record supports the court’s determination that a suspen

2015Contrary to the mother’s contention in both appeals, the record supports the court’s determination that a suspended judgment would not serve the best interests of the children (see Matter of Alex C., Jr. [Alex C., Sr.], 114 AD3d 1149 , 1150 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 901 [2014]; Matter of Tiara B. [Torrence B.], 70 AD3d 1307, 1307-1308 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 709 [2010]; see generally Matter of Mercedes L., 12 AD3d 1184, 1185 [2004]; Matter of Saboor C., 303 AD2d 1022 , 1023 [2003]).

2016Contrary to the mother’s contention in both appeals, the record supports the court’s determination that she made only minimal progress in addressing the issues that resulted in the children’s removal from her custody, which was “ ‘not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the child [ren]’s unsettled familial status’ ” (Matter of Alexander M. [Michael A.M.], 106 AD3d 1524 , 1525 [2013]; see Matter of Joanna P. [Patricia M.], 101 AD3d 1751 , 1752 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 863 [2013]; Matter of Keegan JJ. [Amanda JJ.], 72 AD3d 1159, 1161-1162 [2010]).

2015The mother’s “negligible progress” in addressing the issues that resulted in the children’s removal from her custody was “ ‘not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the child[ren]’s unsettled familial status’ ” (Matter of Alexander M. [Michael A.M.], 106 AD3d 1524 , 1525; see Matter of Joanna P. [Patricia M.], 101 AD3d 1751 , 1752, lv denied 20 NY3d 863 ; Matter of Keegan JJ. [Amanda JJ.], 72 AD3d 1159, 1161-1162 ).

2010“While continually finding fault with or no need for various programs and personnel, [the parents] ‘gained no insight into their own behavior which had been so physically and emotionally damaging to the child[ ] and had required [her] removal’ ” (Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d 838, 842 [1986]).

2010“The court’s assessment that [the father] was not likely to change his behavior is entitled to great, deference” (Matter of Philip D., 266 AD2d 909 [1999]; see Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d 838, 842 [1986]).

2007Thus, any progress made by the father “was not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the child[ren]’s unsettled familial status” (Matter of Maryline A., 22 AD3d 227, 228 [2005]).

2006Thus, any progress that respondent made “was not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the child[ren]’s unsettled familial status” (Matter of Maryline A., 22 AD3d 227, 228 [2005]).

2016Contrary to the mother’s contention in both appeals, the record supports the court’s determination that she made only minimal progress in addressing the issues that resulted in the children’s removal from her custody, which was “ ‘not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the child [ren]’s unsettled familial status’ ” (Matter of Alexander M. [Michael A.M.], 106 AD3d 1524 , 1525 [2013]; see Matter of Joanna P. [Patricia M.], 101 AD3d 1751 , 1752 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 863 [2013]; Matter of Keegan JJ. [Amanda JJ.], 72 AD3d 1159, 1161-1162 [2010]).

2015The mother’s “negligible progress” in addressing the issues that resulted in the children’s removal from her custody was “ ‘not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the child[ren]’s unsettled familial status’ ” (Matter of Alexander M. [Michael A.M.], 106 AD3d 1524 , 1525; see Matter of Joanna P. [Patricia M.], 101 AD3d 1751 , 1752, lv denied 20 NY3d 863 ; Matter of Keegan JJ. [Amanda JJ.], 72 AD3d 1159, 1161-1162 ).

2020The record of the dispositional hearing establishes that the father did not have " a realistic, feasible plan to care for the children' " ( Matter of Nicholas B. [Eleanor J.] , 83 AD3d 1596, 1598 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011]) and that "any progress made by the father was not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the [children's] unsettled familial status" ( D'Angel M.-B. , 173 AD3d at 1766 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Eden S. [Joshua S.] , 170 AD3d 1580 , 1583 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 909 [2019]).

2019Thus, any progress made by the father "was not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the [child's] unsettled familial status" ( Matter of Alexus R.L. [Ashley K.] , 140 AD3d 1699, 1700 [4th Dept 2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2010Contrary to the mother’s contention, “where, as here, a parent admits to permanent neglect, there is no need for the [petitioner] to put forth evidence establishing— nor is it necessary for the court to determine—that the [petitioner] had exercised diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship” (Matter of Aidan D., 58 AD3d 906, 908 [2009]; see Matter of Nestor H.O. [Nestor H.], 68 AD3d 1733 [2009]).

2010Contrary to the mother’s contention, “where, as here, a parent admits to permanent neglect, there is no need for the [petitioner] to put forth evidence establishing— nor is it necessary for the court to determine—that the [petitioner] had exercised diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship” (Matter of Aidan D., 58 AD3d 906, 908 [2009]; see Matter of Nestor H.O. [Nestor H.], 68 AD3d 1733 [2009]).

2008“The court’s determination that [the mother] was not likely to change sufficiently to enable her to parent the children is entitled to great deference” (Matter of Brendan S., 39 AD3d 1189, 1190 [2007]; see Matter of Danielle N., 31 AD3d 1205 [2006]; Matter of Philip D., 266 AD2d 909 [1999]).