Matter of Z. J.W. (Toria W.)

Matter of Z. J.W. (Toria W.) 2026 NY Slip Op 05616 October 1, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. In the Matter of Z. J.W., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Toria W., Respondent-Appellant, Graham Windham, Petitioner-Respondent. Decided and Entered: October 01, 2026 Docket No. B-37741/23|Appeal No. 7112|Case No. 2025-06656| Before: Moulton, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Michael, Hagler, JJ. Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant. The Law Offices of James Cortazzo, P.C., Mineola (Dwight A. Kennedy of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (ZoË Allen of counsel), attorney for the child. [*1] Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper), Family Court, Bronx County (David J. Kaplan, J.), entered on or about September 29, 2025, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated the mother's parental rights to the subject child and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence (Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a]). The agency's progress notes show that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship between the mother and the child by, among other things, scheduling regular visitation; assigning a parent advocate to assist the mother in communicating with the agency; providing her with MetroCards to travel to visit the child; regularly meeting with her to discuss her progress; referring her for mental health services, parenting skills, and anger management; and emphasizing the importance of adhering to her service plan (see Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a], [c], [f]; Matter of G.M.R [A.R.], 242 AD3d 618, 618-619 [1st Dept 2025]; Matter of Elizabeth E.R.T. [Alicia T.], 168 AD3d 448, 449 [1st Dept 2019]). Despite the agency's diligent efforts, the mother failed to plan for the child's future for a period of more than one year after the child entered foster care (see Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a], [c]). Although the mother completed a parenting skills class, she failed to comply with other aspects of her service plan. The record supports the Family Court's finding that the mother did not gain any insight into the problems that led to the child's removal (see Matter of Justice V. [Stephanie M.], 198 AD3d 586, 586 [1st Dept 2021]). Moreover, the mother went months at a time without visiting the child, and this alone constitutes a ground for a finding of permanent neglect (see Matter of Angelica D. [Deborah D.], 157 AD3d 587, 588 [1st Dept 2018]). Finally, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it was in the child's best interest to be freed for adoption (see Matter of Leroy Simpson M. [Joanne M.], 122 AD3d 480, 481 [1st Dept 2014]). The child had lived with his foster mother since he was about four days old and had developed a nurturing relationship with her, and she wished to adopt him (see Matter of Carol Anne Marie L. [Melissa L.], 74 AD3d 643, 644 [1st Dept 2010]). We have considered appellant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 1, 2026