Won affirmance on behalf of the child of permanency order changing goal of the child to adoption.
Matter of Damani B. (Theresa M.), 174 AD3d 524 (2nd Dept. 2019)
In this appeal by the mother from a permanency hearing that changed the goal of the child to adoption, the Second Department accepted my arguments made on behalf of the child Camari L. that the mother’s contentions that the delay in completing the permanency hearing was unnecessary and violated Family Court Act § 1089 (a) (3) as well as her due process rights are not preserved for appellate review. The Court also accepted my arguments that ACS made reasonable efforts to implement the original permanency plan of reunification with the parent, inter alia, by providing, directly or through referrals, appropriate therapy, and parenting and anger management classes and that ACS established by a preponderance of the evidence that changing the permanency goal from reunification to placement for adoption was in the children’s best interests by demonstrating that the mother had not fully addressed the issues that led to the removal of the children, including using excessive corporal punishment, leaving the children unsupervised, and failing to comply with individual therapy treatment.