Matter of M.K.A. (T.M.)

2026 NY Slip Op 02051 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department · April 7, 2026 · No. Docket No. B-1659/21; Appeal No. 6283; Case No. 2024-04228

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed an order terminating the mother's parental rights based on permanent neglect and transferring custody and guardianship for adoption. The court found that the agency made diligent efforts to reunite the mother with the child, but that she failed to consistently comply with her service plan and plan for the child's future. The court also upheld the best-interests determination and declined to impose a suspended judgment.

Holdings

  1. The agency made diligent efforts to reunite the mother with the child, as demonstrated by extensive visitation, service referrals, transportation assistance, case planning, and assistance concerning the child's medical needs.
  2. The finding of permanent neglect was warranted because the mother failed to consistently comply with her service plan, failed to gain insight into the issues that led to the child's placement in foster care, and failed to plan for the child's future.
  3. A preponderance of the evidence supported Family Court's determination that terminating the mother's parental rights and freeing the child for adoption were in the child's best interests.
  4. A suspended judgment was not warranted because the mother had failed over an extended period to comply with her service plan, and granting additional time would only prolong the child's lack of permanence.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that the agency made diligent efforts to reunite the mother with the child.
  2. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that the mother permanently neglected the child by failing to maintain adequate compliance with the service plan and failing to plan for the child's future.
  3. Whether termination of the mother's parental rights and freeing the child for adoption were in the child's best interests.
  4. Whether a suspended judgment was warranted.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (9)

  • Matter of Hailey ZZ. [Ricky ZZ.], 19 NY3d 422, 429 [2012](followed)
  • Matter of Faith J. [Kimberly J.], 200 AD3d 611, 611 [1st Dept 2021](followed)
  • Matter of Janell J. [Shanequa J.], 88 AD3d 512, 512 [1st Dept 2011](followed)
  • Matter of Racquel Olivia M., 37 AD3d 279, 280 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 812 [2007](followed)
  • Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d 838, 841-842 [1986](followed)
  • Matter of Raymond C. [Maria V.], 150 AD3d 476, 477 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 913 [2017](followed)
  • Matter of Serenity H. [Shantell F.], 200 AD3d 452, 452-453 [1st Dept 2021](followed)
  • Matter of Serenity K.T. [Shanisha S.], 190 AD3d 572, 573 [1st Dept 2021](followed)
  • Matter of "No Given Name" O. [Adele O.], 209 AD3d 443, 444 [1st Dept 2022](followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…