DECISION OF THE COURT The Court is faced with the difficult decision to determine the most appropriate disposition in a termination of parental rights (TPR) proceeding. The TPR petition in this case was initially filed on May 4, 2018, alleging that Respondents, A.P. and C. C-V., permanently neglected the children A.C. (DOB XX/XX/XX) and C.P. (DOB XX/XX/XX). After a lengthy hearing on the fact-finding portion of the trial, the Court found, by decision dated June 6, 2019, that the Respondents had permanently neglected the children. The matter was then scheduled for disposition. The matter came on for a dispositional hearing on June 25, 2019, August 8, 2019, August 9, 2019, August 30, 2019, September 18, 2019, September 19, 2019 and September 20, 2019. Due to the number of witnesses called, the schedules of the attorneys and the Court’s calendar, the hearing was not held on consecutive days. All parties and the children were represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. Foster Mother B.R. was also represented by counsel and participated in the dispositional hearing as an interested party (See, Social Services Law §383; Matter of Sean W., 87 AD3d 1318 [4th Dept 2011]). The Court recognizes the efforts of all counsel in this proceeding, all of whom advocated professionally on behalf of their clients. The Court heard from the following witnesses: Ms. V.E., DCFS caseworker, C. C-V. (the father), Ms. R.F., A.P. (the mother), Ms. J. B. and Ms. B.R., foster mother. The Court has had the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor and assess their credibility. The Court additionally received numerous exhibits into evidence. The Court received written closing arguments from Petitioner’s attorney, Ms. P’s attorney, and the Attorney for the Children. After due and careful deliberation, based upon the required quantum of proof, the Court makes the following determination. The child A. was removed from the care of his parents on March 24, 2016 and placed in the care of the Onondaga County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). On April 14, 2016, placement of A. was changed to B.R. as a suitable resource upon the stipulation of the parties. The DCFS subsequently filed a petition seeking the emergency removal of the child C. alleging that the mother left the child in the car while she overdosed on heroin. The child C. was removed on May 13, 2016 and placed with B.R. as a “suitable other.” Both children have remained in the care of Ms. R. since that time. The placement was formally changed to foster care on May 4, 2017 after Ms. R. became certified as a foster parent. The children were adjudicated to be neglected on July 19, 2016 based on Ms. P’s admission to having a substance abuse problem that impaired her ability to provide a safe environment that put both children in imminent risk of harm and Mr. C-V’s consent to an order of fact-finding pursuant to Family Court Act §1051(f). Placement of the children was continued after permanency hearings were held on October 3, 2016, March 29, 2017, September 20, 2017, March 15, 2018, October 4, 2018, April 3, 2019 and September 19, 2019. The children remain in the care of the DCFS at this time. The Court has taken judicial notice of the prior orders in this case (Matter of Gugino v. Tsvasman, 118 AD3d 1341 [4th Dept 2014]; Matter of A.R., 309 AD2d 1153 [4th Dept 2003]). Specifically, the Court takes judicial notice of the following orders under docket numbers NN-1323-1324-16: Order on Application for Temporary Removal of Child (for child A.) issued on March 30, 2016, Temporary Removal of Child (for child C.) issued on May 13, 2016, Order of Fact-Finding and Disposition issued on July 19, 2016, Modified Order on Application for Temporary Removal of Child issued on April 14, 2016 and Order Determining Modification of Placement issued on May 4, 2017. The Court additionally takes judicial notice of the permanency hearing orders issued on October 3, 2016, March 29, 2017, September 20, 2017, March 5, 2018, October 4, 2018, April 3, 2019 and the most recent permanency hearing on September 19, 2019. STANDARD OF LAW In accordance with Section 631 of the Family Court Act, the Court shall enter an order of disposition after an adjudication of permanent neglect solely on the basis of the best interests of the child, and there shall be no presumption that such interests will be promoted by any particular disposition. In a dispositional hearing, hearsay evidence is admissible if it is material and relevant (Matter of Ramon F., 173 AD3d 1775 [4th Dept 2019]; In re Ricky A.B., 15 AD3d 838 [4th Dept 2005]). The Court has the following options for disposition in a termination of parental rights proceeding: dismissing the petition, suspending judgment or committing guardianship and custody of the children to the DCFS (Family Court Act §631). After an adjudication of permanent neglect, “the sole concern at a dispositional hearing is the best interests of the child[ren]” (Matter of Jahvani Z., 168 AD3d 1146 [3rd Dept 2019]). There is no presumption that any particular disposition is in the children’s best interests (Family Court Act §631; Matter of Elias P., 145 AD3d 1066 [2nd Dept 2016]). As part of this inquiry, the Court must consider “the environment and the stability of the prospective adoptive home” (Matter of Kyle K., 72 AD3d 1592 [4th Dept 2010]). SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE Ms. V. E. testified on behalf of the Onondaga County Department of Children and Family Services on June 25, 2019, August 8, 2019 and August 9, 2019. She has been the assigned caseworker in this matter since May 17, 2016. She testified that both children are currently placed in a certified foster home. Ms. E testified that the issues that needed to be addressed for Ms. P were substance abuse, domestic violence, homelessness, mental health, parenting skills and visitation services. Upon his release from incarceration, Mr. C-V needed to address substance abuse, domestic violence, mental health, visitation services and housing. Ms. E’s testimony thereafter focused on the parents’ involvement in services since the TPR petition was filed. According to Ms. E, Ms. P revoked her release for her to receive information from Helio Health in December of 2018. Ms. J.R., who formerly was employed at Helio Health, advised Ms. E that the mother had been terminated from mental health services there and smelled of marijuana when she attended group treatment on April 11, 2019. Ms. E testified that she was advised by letter from Helio Health on June 19, 2019 that Ms. P was attending treatment and awaiting reassignment to a mental health counselor. A copy of the letter was received as Petitioner’s Exhibit 1. Ms. E noted that the children were in foster care for over two years before Ms. P entered inpatient treatment. Petitioner submitted exhibits 2-7 and 13, which indicated that Ms. P had positive tests for marijuana on August 21, 2018, September 25, 2018, March 4, 2019, March 7, 2019, April 10, 2019, June 12, 2019 and July 15, 2019. The March 4, 2019 and July 15, 2019 drug tests were also positive for amphetamines. Ms. E testified that Ms. P completed domestic violence education classes in May, 2019, but that the DCFS had concerns due to orders of protection issued on her behalf in the P.B. Village Court in May or June of 2018 and in N.S. after an incident of domestic violence on December 20, 2018. Ms. E further testified that Ms. P has resided at eight different addresses since April 8, 2018. On September 27, 2018, Ms. E visited Ms. P’s new apartment in Cayuga County which she determined was not safe and stable as it was transitional and not permanent. Ms. E initially testified at the beginning of the dispositional hearing that Ms. P was living in the YWCA Transitional Housing Program. During her testimony on August 9, 2019, Ms. E stated that she had just become aware that day that Ms. P had been terminated from that housing. According to Ms. E, Ms. P has completed seven of the sixteen required parenting classes. Since April 6, 2018, Ms. P has had weekly visits at Family Place for one and a half hours in duration. The visits are continuously supervised; intermittent supervision would not be recommended until Ms. P engaged in mental health services. On June 6, 2019, Ms. E supervised a make-up visit at the Civic Center with Ms. P and the children. During that visit, the child A. hit his leg on a chair. Ms. P told the child she had a knife in her purse and would have to amputate his leg, which caused both children to worry. Ms. P later said that she had been kidding. According to Ms. E, Ms. P attended intake for mental health treatment on July 7, 2019 but missed her follow-up appointment on July 22, 2019. She has not been consistent in individual and family counseling. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1, a June 19, 2019 letter from Helio Health, stated that Mother had previously been enrolled in mental health services at Helio Health from February 13, 2019 through April 12, 2019 but was discharged due to lack of attendance. With respect to Mr. C-V, Ms. E testified that he had bi-weekly supervised visits at the Civic Center from April 8, 2018 to December 31, 2018. Mr. C-V was often distracted during the visits. After December 31, 2018, Mr. C-V never returned for visits. Ms. E was aware that Mr. C-V subsequently saw the foster mother with the children at a local restaurant, but she has not supervised any visits for him in 2019, despite sending monthly letters offering visits. Ms. E testified that she had no information on Mr. C-V’s substance abuse treatment since March of 2019 when Mr. C-V revoked his consent for her to receive information. According to Ms. E, Mr. C-V had positive drug screens for marijuana on August 6, 2018, August 27, 2018, September 24, 2018 and December 3, 2018. The August 6, 2018 test was also positive for opiates. Ms. E testified that Mr. C-V was arrested after an incident with Ms. P on December 20, 2018. Petitioner submitted Petitioner’s Exhibit 8, a certified police report from N.S. Police Department, which was received into evidence. The police report indicates that Mr. C-V was criminally charged with Robbery 2nd, Assault 2nd and Grand Larceny 4th for an incident on December 20, 2018 in which Ms. P was the victim. According to Ms. P’s sworn statement attached to the police report, Mr. C-V threw her to the ground and hit her head, either by slamming her head on the ground or hitting her head directly. Ms. P suffered an abrasion on her hand, a bump and swelling to her head, a cut on her upper lip and a cut on her left knee. Ms. P stated in her affidavit that C. C-V. was always getting physical with her and controlling everything she does. An arrest warrant was issued for C. C-V, which was executed on March 8, 2019. Ms. E testified that Ms. P told her on July 15, 2019 that Mr. C-V’s charges were reduced to misdemeanors when she did not show up for the court appearance. There was no testimony that these criminal charges have been resolved. According to Ms. E, Mr. C-V has not completed domestic violence services. Petitioner additionally submitted Petitioner’s Exhibit 15, which is a copy of a Temporary Order of Protection issued in M. Town Court on March 8, 2019 that requires C. C-V. to stay away from A.P. until September 8, 2019. Ms. E testified that although Mr. C-V had an Order of Protection to stay away from Ms. P, her supervisor saw both parents walking together on the street in violation of the Order. Ms. E testified that she, on behalf of the DCFS, was seeking that the parental rights of Ms. P and Mr. C-V be terminated in order to establish permanency for the children through adoption. She was opposed to a suspended judgment because the parents had not ameliorated the conditions that led to the removal of the children. According to Ms. E, the children have been in the same foster home for over three years, where they appear to be happy and content and to have a warm and loving bond with the foster mother, B.R. Ms. E testified that the foster mother worked full-time and was able to provide for the children. The Court finds Ms. E’s testimony to be extremely credible and reliable. At the conclusion of Ms. E’s testimony, the Petitioner rested. Mr. C-V, commenced his testimony on August 9, 2019 but then did not appear on the next scheduled trial date of August 30, 2019. He additionally did not appear on September 18, 2019 or September 19, 2019. When he did return to Court on September 20, 2019, the Court permitted him to resume his testimony. Mr. C-V testified that he had a difficult relationship with Ms. E. He testified that he was engaged in mental health treatment from January, 2018 through October, 2018. He admitted that he has not engaged in any services for domestic violence, stating that he was a “terrible procrastinator”. Mr. C-V testified that he was currently involved in a methadone program seven days per week, and admitted that he had not told Ms. E about it. Mr. C-V testified that he was unaware that he was required to sign releases. The Court takes judicial notice that its Order of Fact-Finding and Disposition, dated July 19, 2016, and the subsequent permanency hearing orders from October 3, 2016, March 29, 2017, September 20, 2017, March 5, 2018, October 4, 2018, April 3, 2019 and September 19, 2019 contain a provision requiring both parents to sign any all releases of confidential information deemed necessary and relevant by the assigned Child Welfare Division caseworker. Mr. C-V agreed that his last visit with his children was on December 17, 2018, except for an occasion when he unexpectedly ran into his children with the foster mother at local restaurant, where he was employed. He testified that his criminal charges were still pending. According to Mr. C-V, his eleven-year-old daughter resides with him in Cayuga County. He testified that he had an open case with the Cayuga County Department of Social Services that has since closed. The Court notes that this Court does not have jurisdiction over Mr. C-V’s eleven-year-old daughter residing in another county and is unaware of any orders or restrictions relating to that child. Mr. C-V resumed his testimony on September 20, 2019. He testified that he had not completed domestic violence classes and admitted there had been incidents of domestic violence between him and Ms. P. According to Mr. C-V, he completed the group portion of substance abuse treatment at Conifer Park and was now receiving methadone treatment. Mr. C-V admitted that he had revoked releases to allow the DCFS caseworker to monitor his progress in substance abuse treatment. He additionally admitted that he still had three more parenting classes to complete, and that he was not consistently involved with the children. Mr. C-V testified that he was living at a hotel, but may move by October 1, 2019 and would seek an emergency grant from the DCFS. The Court notes that Mr. C-V’s testimony was inconsistent and rambling at times. The tenor and tone of his testimony ranged from sincere to defensive and argumentative. Ms. P commenced her case on August 30, 2019. She first called Ms. R. F., who previously worked as a clinical visitation worker at the Salvation Army. Ms. F testified that she had a Masters Degree in Social Work. Ms. F supervised Ms. P’s visits at Family Place from June of 2016 through May of 2017. According to Ms. F, the visits generally went well and the children were excited to see their mother. The children appeared to be bonded to Ms. P and Ms. P was receptive to parenting skills. In May of 2017, Ms. P was discharged from Family Place due to lack of attendance and her whereabouts were unknown for a period of time. Ms. F testified that Ms. P had no contact with the children from May 30, 2017 through October 16, 2017. The Court finds Ms. F to be a very credible and reliable witness, but that her testimony was of limited value since her last involvement with Ms. P was over two years ago. Ms. A.P. testified on August 30, 2019 and September 18, 2019. When she commenced her testimony on August 30, 2019, she stated that she was currently residing at the YWCA shelter but was moving out and looking for other housing in Cayuga County. On September 18, 2019, she testified that she was currently living in a hotel. With respect to substance abuse, Ms. P denied use of amphetamines, despite the positive tests, but admitted to use of marijuana. Ms. P testified that she had attended substance abuse treatment at ACR, Crouse, Willows, Helio Health outpatient treatment and Willows inpatient treatment. She was currently receiving services at Helio Health’s outpatient program, six days per week for methadone dosing. Ms. P testified that she had known the current foster mother, B.R., for fifteen years and that she was the child C.’s godmother. Ms. P addressed Ms. F’s testimony that she had stopped attending Family Place visitations in May of 2017. According to Ms. P, she was actively using drugs in the Summer of 2017 and that she did not want her children to see her like that. Ms. P admitted during her testimony on September 18, 2019 that she had not completed parenting classes and indicated that as of that date, she still had about four or five classes left to go. She stated that she needed until “the first snow” to get her children back, that she had re-started mental health treatment and was decreasing her methadone dosage. She asked the Court for more time to have her children returned to her and argued that a termination was not in their best interests. Upon cross-examination by the Deputy County Attorney, Ms. P admitted that she had no permanent housing, had just started re-engaging in mental health treatment and had missed a few outpatient appointments in her substance abuse program. Ms. P further admitted to missing visits with her children on August 20, 2019 and August 27, 2019 due to the “state” she was in. Upon cross-examination from the Attorney for the Child, Ms. P testified that she had not engaged in any parenting classes since August 30, 2019 due to the eviction from her apartment. She admitted to smoking marijuana when she had anxiety, a few times per week, but insisted that she never smoked marijuana in the presence of her children and anticipated being off methadone and marijuana in the future. Ms. P testified that the marijuana use was recommended by a counselor, but admitted that although she currently uses marijuana, she no longer has a prescription for it. The Court notes that during significant portions of Ms. P’s testimony, she blamed Ms. E, the caseworker, for many of her problems. The Court finds that Ms. P had a very calm demeanor during her testimony, but was defensive at times and accusatory in tone and tenor as to the caseworker. Ms. P then called Ms. J.B. as a witness on her behalf. Ms. B, who has a Masters in Counseling and works for the Salvation Army, testified on September 18, 2019 that she was Ms. P’s clinical visitation worker from September of 2018 through July 2, 2019. She testified that the child C. had a difficult time saying goodbye to his mother at the end of visits and sometimes had a stomach ache. Her opinion was that the child’s stomach aches were due to the difficulty in transitioning from his mother to his home life. Ms. B testified that she stopped supervising Ms. P’s visits in July of 2019 because Ms. P moved from clinical visitation to coached visitation as she had “maxed out.” According to Ms. B, this was not a successful conclusion of Ms. P’s case, and she had not yet reached her goals. Ms. B testified that mental health and substance issues had not been successfully addressed by Ms. P. The Court finds Ms. B’s testimony to be very credible, reliable, and sincere. On September 20, 2019, counsel for the foster mother Ms. B.R. called her to testify on her own behalf. Ms. R testified that she had cared for the child A. since April of 2016 and the child C. since May of 2016. According to Ms. R, she had been friends with Ms. P since 4th grade. When the child C. was born, she visited him and took him to the zoo and other outings. When she found out that Ms. P’s child A. was being placed into foster care, she voluntarily took the child as a “suitable other placement.” She later became officially certified as a foster parent to care for the children. Ms. R testified to her love for the children and the activities that she has involved them in. She additionally testified that she would adopt the children if given the opportunity. Ms. R testified that she initially struggled financially, but now is financially stable. Ms. R takes the children to school and daycare every day. She takes C. to therapy once a week. Ms. R testified that Ms. P had only attended two medical appointments for the children. Upon cross-examination by Ms. P’s counsel, Ms. R agreed that she had not advised Ms. P of medical appointments for the children, stating that it was not her job to do so. The Court notes that it is the responsibility of the DCFS, not the foster parent, to advise parents of medical appointments for the children. The Courts finds Ms. R’s testimony to be extremely credible, reliable and sincere. ANALYSIS In this case, the Court’s sole concern is the best interests of the children C. and A. These children have been in legal limbo for far too long, having been removed from the care of their parents on March 30, 2016 and May 13, 2016. Section 384-b of the Social Services Law warns against “protracted stays” in foster care, noting that it “may deprive these children of positive nurturing family relationships and have deleterious effects on their development into responsible, productive citizens” (Social Services Law §384-b(1)(b)). The evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the Respondents made “only minimal progress in addressing the issues that resulted in the [children's] removal from [their] custody” (Matter of James P., 148 AD3d 1526 [4th Dept 2017]). Mr. C-V has essentially abandoned the children when he stopped attending supervised visitation after December of 2018. The Court notes that Ms. P has never progressed beyond continuous supervision during her parenting time (See, Matter of Dawn M., 174 AD3d 972 [3rd Dept 2019]; Matter of Jessica U., 152 AD3d 1001 [3rd Dept 2017]). Ms. P has also not maintained stable housing, having lived in at least eight different places since the petition was filed (See, Matter of Aidan D., 58 AD3d 906 [3rd Dept 2009]). As of the last date of her testimony on September 19, 2019, Ms. P was residing in a hotel and seeking permanent housing. Mr. C-V was also residing in a hotel without permanent housing. While the Court commends Ms. P for re-engaging in mental health treatment, any progress made at this late date is “not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the [children's] unsettled familial status” (Matter of D’Angel M.-B., 173 AD3d 1764 [4th Dept 2019]). The Court finds disturbing Ms. P’s continuous use of marijuana to cope with anxiety without a prescription and the positive tests for amphetamines during the pendency of this proceeding. The parents here ultimately failed to develop a realistic plan for these children within a reasonable time to correct the issues that led to the removal of the children (Matter of Katara F., 231 AD2d 844 [4th Dept 1996]). The Court is mindful that the child C. was removed from Ms. P’s care on May 13, 2016 due to allegations of Ms. P’s heroin abuse. Since that time, Ms. P has engaged in numerous substance abuse treatment programs, to her credit. Yet more than three years after the removal of her children, Ms. P is still using marijuana to cope with her anxiety without a prescription and was still testing positive for amphetamines as recently as July of 2019. She testified that her plan for the future is to stop using methadone and marijuana. The Court finds that Ms. P has not adequately addressed or gained insight into the issues that initially led to the removal of her children (See, Matter of Mirabella H., 162 AD3d 1733 [4th Dept 2018]). During significant portions of her testimony, she continued to blame Ms. E and the foster mother for her ongoing issues. It does not appear from the evidence presented that Ms. P has truly accepted responsibility for the events that led to the removal of her children (Matter of Jerikkoh W., 134 AD3d 1550 [4th Dept 2015]). The Court ultimately finds that termination of both Ms. P’s and Mr. C-V’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children (Matter of Cycle F., 155 AD3d 1626 [4th Dept 2017]). During the hearing, Ms. P testified that the foster mother was receiving special treatment from the Petitioner agency because her mother works for the Onondaga County Department of Children and Family Services. Ms. P’s attorney has argued repeatedly in her closing statement that this presented a conflict of interest. According to the testimony of Ms. E on August 8, 2019, she was aware that the foster mother’s mother worked for the Onondaga County Department of Children and Family Services, but testified that the case was marked sensitive and that Ms. R’s mother had no access to information in Ms. P’s case. In fact, Ms. E testified that Ms. R’s mother originally sought placement of the children, but was denied due to her employment with the DCFS. In 2018, the foster mother began residing with her mother. Ms. E testified that there was no prohibition on her living with her mother. The Court notes that there has no been evidence received that there was any information provided to the foster mother’s mother regarding this case or that any conflict of interest existed. During the hearing, Ms. P’s counsel asked Ms. E about numerous incidents in 2016 concerning the foster mother. The Court finds that these incidents occurred three years ago and the Court finds that they are not relevant and do not prove any bias on the part of the Petitioner or any conflict of interest. Ms. E testified that Ms. P initially wanted the children placed with Ms. R due to their longstanding relationship. She further testified that Ms. P never requested to remove the children from Ms. R’s care. The Court notes that the foster mother was an old friend of Ms. P’s who became certified as a foster parent in order to care for these children. She was not a foster parent selected by the DCFS. The Court therefore rejects Ms. P’s claims of bias or a conflict of interest in this case. Ms. P’s counsel has urged the Court to issue a suspended judgment in this matter, seeking an additional twelve (12) months for her client to progress in and complete services. A suspended judgment is not appropriate in this case (Matter of Lennox M., 173 AD3d 1668 [4th Dept 2019]). The purpose of a suspended judgment is to be “a brief grace period designed to prepare the parent to be reunited with the [children], but it is only appropriate where a delay would be consonant with the best interests of the [children]” (Matter of Isabella H., 174 AD3d977 [3rd Dept 2019]). In this case, the children have already been in foster care for over three years. The Court cannot permit the children to languish in foster care and uncertainty to await any potential progress on behalf of the parents. Given the circumstances of this case, there is no indication that even if Ms. P was given more time, she would be able to change sufficiently to allow her to parent these children (Matter of Matthew S., 169 AD3d 1456 [4th Dept 2019]). There is “no evidence that further delay would result in a different outcome” in this matter (In Re Bianca J.N., 166 AD3d 466 [1st Dept 2018]). Ultimately, “any progress made by the mother prior to the dispositional determination [is] insufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the [children's] unsettled familial status” (Matter of Kendalle K., 144 AD3d 1670 [4th Dept 2016]). A suspended judgment in this matter would only prolong a lack of permanency for these children. The Court also notes that the foster mother wishes to adopt both children (Matter of Ada M.R., 306 AD2d 920 [4th Dept 2003]). While not dispositive, terminating the rights of the parents and freeing them for adoption by the foster mother is consistent with the Attorney for the Children’s position in this matter. Ms. P’s counsel, in her written closing argument submitted on September 27, 2019, asked the Court to issue a stay of this proceeding pending Governor Andrew Cuomo’s signature on the Preserving Family Bonds Act. The Court takes judicial notice of the public record (Matter of Siwek v. Mahoney, 39 NY2d 159 [1976]) that this Act, which would allow post-termination visitation, has passed both the New York Assembly and the New York Senate and is currently awaiting action from the Governor. Issuing a stay in this case would be manifestly unfair to these children, who have already remained in legal limbo, without permanency, for over three years. Even if the Governor signs this bill, it would not be effective until thirty (30) days after the Governor’s signature (2019 NY Senate Bill S4203A) and then would require a new hearing to allow all parties to submit proof on the issue of post-termination visitation. Current law, binding on this Court, prohibits the Court from ordering visitation for parents after a termination of their parental rights (Matter of Hailey ZZ, 19 NY3d 422 [2012]). The need for permanency for these children is paramount. The Court hereby denies Ms. P’s request for a stay. CONCLUSION The Court concludes that a preponderance of the evidence supports termination of the mother and father’s parental rights as being in the best interests of the subject children and hereby commits their guardianship and custody to the Commissioner of the Onondaga County Department of Children and Family Services and that the children be freed for adoption. The attorney for the Petitioner is directed to submit an Order to the Court incorporating the findings and conclusions of this Decision as well as the written Decision and Order on Fact Finding. The permanency hearing for the subject children that have now been freed for adoption will be held on November XX, 2019 in Part 1 of Onondaga County Family Court pursuant to Family Court Act §1089(a). Dated: October 8, 2019 Syracuse, New York
