In the Matter of JASNIA Y. andAnother, Alleged tobe Permanently NeglectedChildren.BROOME COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDERSOCIAL SERVICES,Respondent;ALEASE Y.,Appellant.________________________________Calendar Date: April 30, 2018Before: McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Pritzker, JJ.__________Sandra M. Colatosti, Albany, for appellant.Kuredin V. Eytina, Broome County Department of SocialServices, Binghamton, for respondent.Michelle E. Stone, Vestal, attorney for the children.__________Devine, J.Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County(Young, J.), entered January 26, 2017, which, in a proceedingpursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, granted petitioner’smotion to revoke a suspended judgment, and terminatedrespondent’s parental rights.Respondent is the mother of, among others, the subjectchildren (born in 2007 and 2008). The children have been inpetitioner’s care and custody since 2009. In 2013, petitionercommenced this permanent neglect proceeding against respondentseeking to terminate her parental rights.1 Respondent madeadmissions of permanent neglect and consented to an order offact-finding and disposition with a six-month suspended judgmentset to expire in November 2014. In October 2014, petitionermoved to revoke the suspended judgment. Following a fact-findinghearing and dispositional hearing, Family Court revoked thesuspended judgment and terminated respondent’s parental rights.Respondent now appeals.A suspended judgment is intended to provide a parent whohas permanently neglected his or her children with a brief periodwithin which to become a fit parent with whom the children can bereunited in safety (see Matter of Jerhia EE. [Benjamin EE.], 157AD3d 1017, 1018 [2018]; Matter of Dominique VV. [Kelly VV.], 145AD3d 1124, 1125 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 901 [2017]). FamilyCourt is free to “revoke a suspended judgment and terminate aparent’s rights upon a showing by a preponderance of the evidencethat a parent has not complied with the terms of the suspendedjudgment” (Matter of Dominique VV. [Kelly VV.], 145 AD3d at 1125;see Matter of Jerhia EE. [Benjamin EE.], 157 AD3d at 1018; Matterof Hazel OO. [Roseanne OO.], 133 AD3d 1126, 1127 [2015]). Tothat end, “[a] parent’s attempt to comply with the literalprovisions of the suspended judgment is not enough; rather[,] theparent must demonstrate that progress has been made to overcomethe specific problems which led to the removal of the child[ren]“(Matter of Jennifer VV., 241 AD2d 622, 623 [1997]; accord Matterof Jonathan J., 47 AD3d 992, 993 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 706[2008]; see Matter of Maykayla FF. [Eugene FF.], 141 AD3d 898,899 [2016]).Petitioner provided testimony from its caseworker and afoster care caseworker, both of whom had worked with respondentand detailed how she failed to comply with the terms of thesuspended judgment in significant respects. In particular,respondent lied about her continued ties to a romantic partnerwith whom she had a history of domestic violence, indicating thatshe had not benefitted from domestic violence counseling asrequired. Respondent also exhibited troubling behavior duringsupervised visitation that included making inappropriate commentsabout the children’s foster family, ignoring the children tofocus on telephone calls and raging against both caseworkers inthe presence of the children. It accordingly appeared thatrespondent’s anger management treatment had been for nought.Moreover, respondent failed in her obligation to cooperate withboth caseworkers, refusing to execute requested releases andlying about issues pertinent to her ability to care for thechildren, such as her pregnancy and her living situation.Respondent disputed this testimony, but Family Court found heraccount to be “wholly incredible” and we “accord[] greatdeference” to that assessment (Matter of Dominique VV. [KellyVV.], 145 AD3d at 1125). A sound and substantial basis thereforeexists in the record to support Family Court’s revocation of thesuspended judgment (see Matter of Jerhia EE. [Benjamin EE.], 157AD3d at 1018-1019; Matter of Jayden T. [Amy T.], 118 AD3d 1075,1076-1077 [2014]; Matter of Frederick MM., 23 AD3d 951, 952-953[2005]).Turning to the disposition, “[w]hile a parent’s failure tocomply with the conditions of a suspended judgment does notautomatically compel termination of parental rights, thatnoncompliance constitutes strong evidence that termination is, infact, in the best interests of the child” (Matter of Jason H.[Lisa K.], 118 AD3d 1066, 1068 [2014] [internal quotation marks,brackets and citations omitted]; see Matter of Maykayla FF.[Eugene FF.], 141 AD3d at 900). The children have been in fostercare for several years and have established a strong bond withtheir preadoptive foster family. Respondent continued to visitwith them but also continued to fail to benefit from domesticviolence and anger management programs, a point demonstrated mostforcefully when she stabbed a man in a domestic dispute inOctober 2015. In short, it remained unclear whether or when shewould be able to properly care for the children. Family Courtproperly concluded from the foregoing, in addition to the incamera testimony of the children, that the best interests of thechildren lie in terminating respondent’s parental rights andfreeing them for adoption (see Matter of Sequoyah Z. [MelissaZ.], 127 AD3d 1518, 1521 [2015], lvs denied 25 NY3d 911, 912[2015]; Matter of Arianna BB. [Tracy DD.], 110 AD3d 1194, 1197-1198 [2013], lvs denied 22 NY3d 858 [2014]).As a final matter, the dispositional hearing included proofthat petitioner had investigated respondent’s sister and rejectedher as a placement resource due to her history of domesticviolence and anger management issues. Respondent now complainsthat Family Court gave short shrift to her sister’s separatecustody petition, but “[t]hat issue is not relevant torespondent’s parental rights and, moreover, she lacks standing toraise that issue on behalf of her sister” (Matter of Serenity KK.[Cynthia KK.], 80 AD3d 818, 818 [2011]; see Matter of AngelicaVV., 53 AD3d 732, 733 [2008]; Matter of Andrew Z., 41 AD3d 912,913 [2007]).McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Clark and Pritzker, JJ., concur.ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.ENTER:Robert D. MaybergerClerk of the Court
