evidence at the dispositional hearing in New York

2010The evidence at the dispositional hearing supports the determination that it was in the best interests of the child to terminate respondent’s parental rights so as to facilitate the child’s adoption by his foster parents, with whom he has lived for most of his life and developed a close relationship, and who have tended to his psychiatric and developmental needs (see Matter of Taaliyah Simone S.D., 28 AD3d 371 [2006]).

2009A preponderance of the evidence at the dispositional hearing supported the determination that the best interests of the child dictated termination of respondent’s parental rights, to facilitate adoption by the child’s foster mother, with whom she has developed a close relationship, and who has tended to her behavioral and developmental needs (see Matter of Taaliyah Simone S.D., 28 AD3d 371 [2006]).

2013Moreover, the mother, at the time of the dispositional hearing, had still not completed drug treatment, parenting skills, or any other aspect of her service plan (see Matter of Tyjaia Simone-Kiesha Mc. [Crystal Mc.], 101 AD3d 635 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Brandon R. [Chrystal R.], 95 AD3d 653 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 998 [2013]).

2013Moreover, the mother, at the time of the dispositional hearing, had still not completed drug treatment, parenting skills, or any other aspect of her service plan (see Matter of Tyjaia Simone-Kiesha Mc. [Crystal Mc.], 101 AD3d 635 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Brandon R. [Chrystal R.], 95 AD3d 653 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 998 [2013]).

2013Moreover, the mother, at the time of the dispositional hearing, had still not completed drug treatment, parenting skills, or any other aspect of her service plan (see Matter of Tyjaia Simone-Kiesha Mc. [Crystal Mc.], 101 AD3d 635 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Brandon R. [Chrystal R.], 95 AD3d 653 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 998 [2013]).

2013Moreover, the mother, at the time of the dispositional hearing, had still not completed drug treatment, parenting skills, or any other aspect of her service plan (see Matter of Tyjaia Simone-Kiesha Mc. [Crystal Mc.], 101 AD3d 635 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Brandon R. [Chrystal R.], 95 AD3d 653 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 998 [2013]).

2013Moreover, the mother, at the time of the dispositional hearing, had still not completed drug treatment, parenting skills, or any other aspect of her service plan (see Matter of Tyjaia Simone-Kiesha Mc. [Crystal Mc.], 101 AD3d 635 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Brandon R. [Chrystal R.], 95 AD3d 653 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 998 [2013]).

2013Moreover, the mother, at the time of the dispositional hearing, had still not completed drug treatment, parenting skills, or any other aspect of her service plan (see Matter of Tyjaia Simone-Kiesha Mc. [Crystal Mc.], 101 AD3d 635 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Brandon R. [Chrystal R.], 95 AD3d 653 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 998 [2013]).

2012Moreover, the evidence at the dispositional hearing provides a sound and substantial basis for Family Court’s finding that the termination of respondent’s parental rights, rather than an entry of a suspended judgment, was in the child’s best interests (see Family Ct Act § 631; Matter of Carlos R., 63 AD3d at 1246 ; Matter of Aidan D., 58 AD3d 906, 909 [2009]).

2012Moreover, the evidence at the dispositional hearing provides a sound and substantial basis for Family Court’s finding that the termination of respondent’s parental rights, rather than an entry of a suspended judgment, was in the child’s best interests (see Family Ct Act § 631; Matter of Carlos R., 63 AD3d at 1246 ; Matter of Aidan D., 58 AD3d 906, 909 [2009]).

2009The contentions of the father and the Law Guardian concerning events that occurred subsequent to the dispositional hearing are not properly before us (see Matter of Saafir M., 17 AD3d 1100 [2005]).

2009The contentions of the father and the Law Guardian concerning events that occurred subsequent to the dispositional hearing are not properly before us (see Matter of Saafir M., 17 AD3d 1100 [2005]).

2007In view of the foregoing, the evidence at the dispositional hearing that the 11-year-old child has lived with the foster mother for most of his life and bonded with her and his foster siblings, and that the foster mother wants to adopt him, clearly justifies the finding that termination of respondent’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests (see Matter of Joshua Justin T., 208 AD2d 469 [1994]).

1996Further, in view of the mother’s demonstrated lack of commitment, the evidence at the dispositional hearing that the children had lived with the foster mother for approximately four years, that the foster mother was particularly capable of attending to the children’s special needs, and that the foster mother wanted to adopt them, clearly justified the Family Court’s finding that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests (see, Matter of Joshua Justin T., 208 AD2d 469 ).

2007The record shows that the foster mother has provided the children with a loving, supportive home, and has devoted herself fully to seeing that the children’s needs, are met (see Matter of Dominique S., 276 AD2d 367 [2000]).

2007The evidence at the dispositional hearing was preponderant that the best interests of the children would be served by terminating the father’s parental rights (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]) so as to facilitate the children’s adoption by their foster parents with whom they have lived most of their lives, bonded and thrived (see Matter of Dominique S., 276 AD2d 367 [2000]).

2006Accordingly, the court properly declined to enter a suspended judgment (see Matter of Terry P., 18 AD3d 348 [2005]; Matter of Pearl M.A., 13 AD3d 141 [2004]).

2006Accordingly, the court properly declined to enter a suspended judgment (see Matter of Terry P., 18 AD3d 348 [2005]; Matter of Pearl M.A., 13 AD3d 141 [2004]).

2006Accordingly, the court properly declined to enter a suspended judgment (see Matter of Terry P., 18 AD3d 348 [2005]; Matter of Pearl M.A., 13 AD3d 141 [2004]).

2006Accordingly, the court properly declined to enter a suspended judgment (see Matter of Terry P., 18 AD3d 348 [2005]; Matter of Pearl M.A., 13 AD3d 141 [2004]).

2026We therefore conclude that the court properly determined that a suspended judgment was unwarranted, and that the best interests of the child would be served by freeing the child for adoption, thereby "provid[ing] him with prospects for permanency and some sense of the stability he deserve[s]" ( Matter of Raine QQ. , 51 AD3d 1106, 1107 [3d Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 717 [2008]; see Matter of Brandon I.J. [Daisy D.] , 198 AD3d 1310, 1311 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 901 [2022]; Elijah D. , 74 AD3d at 1847 ).

2022Contrary to the mother's contention, the evidence at the dispositional hearing demonstrated that terminating her parental rights and freeing the child for adoption, as opposed to entering a suspended judgment, was in the best interests of the child ( see Family Ct Act § 631; Matter of Abbygail H.M.G. [Eddie G.] , 205 AD3d 913 , 915 ; Matter of Elizabeth M.G.C. [Maria L.G.C.] , 190 AD3d at 732).

2018A preponderance of the evidence at the dispositional hearing supports the finding that the child's best interests would be served by terminating the father's parental rights ( see Matter of Star Leslie W. , 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]) so as to facilitate the child's adoption by his [*2]kinship foster mother, with whom he has lived since the age of four months, and with whom he is well-cared for and thriving ( see Matter of Nephra P.[John Lee P.] , 149 AD3d 642 [1st Dept 2017]).

2016Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the evidence at the dispositional hearing established that the child’s best interests would be served by freeing the child for adoption by the foster parents (see Family Ct Act § 631; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]; Matter of Anastasia R. [Jessica R.], 133 AD3d 605 [2015]).

2016The children have bonded with their foster mother, who has met all their needs and wishes to adopt them (see Matter of Emily Jane Star R. [Evelyn R.], 117 AD3d 646 [1st Dept 2014]).

2016A forensic evaluation of the child was unwarranted (see Family Ct Act § 251; Matter of Solovay v Solovay, 94 AD3d 898, 900 [2012]), and any error by the Family Court in limiting questions concerning the living arrangements of the child’s sibling was harmless given the evidence adduced in these proceedings (see Matter of Sylvia Esther O., 253 AD2d 465 [1998]).

2016Here, the evidence at the dispositional hearing established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it was in the subject children’s best interests to terminate the mother’s parental rights and free them for adoption by their foster parents, who expressed a desire to adopt them (see Matter of Vaughn M.S. [Patricia C.S.], 144 AD3d 811 [2d Dept 2016]; Matter of Phoenix D.A. [Jessie A.], 143 AD3d at 702).

2015Moreover, the Family Court properly determined that the best interests of the children would be served by terminating the mother’s parental rights and freeing them for adoption by their foster parents (see Matter of Jalil U. [Rachel L.-U], 122 AD3d 869 [2014]; Matter of Yamilette M.G. [Marlene M.], 118 AD3d 698 , 700 [2014]; Matter of Joshua E.