Permanent Neglect Without Agency Reunification Efforts and Limits on Suspended Judgments and Counsel Substitution:
Commentary on Matter of Y. SS. (E. SS.), 2025 NY Slip Op 06562 (3d Dept)

I. Introduction

This commentary examines the November 26, 2025 decision of the Appellate Division, Third Department, in Matter of Y. SS. (E. SS.), 2025 NY Slip Op 06562. The case arises from a petition by the Tompkins County Department of Social Services (DSS) to adjudicate a child permanently neglected under Social Services Law § 384-b and to terminate the parental rights of the mother, E. SS.

The case is notable for three interrelated doctrinal points:

It clarifies the operation of permanent neglect proceedings when the agency has already been relieved of its obligation to make reasonable (or diligent) efforts toward reunification, with the inquiry focused almost exclusively on the parent’s failure to "substantially plan" for the child’s future.
It underscores the stringent standard for granting a suspended judgment in termination proceedings—especially where parental progress is belated and partial—in contrast to the child's demonstrated need for stability and permanency.
It reinforces Third Department precedent limiting a parent’s ability to delay or derail termination proceedings by repeated requests to substitute assigned counsel or obtain adjournments, while simultaneously restating the “meaningful representation” standard for effective assistance of counsel in Family Court.

Against a background of extreme underlying neglect—namely the mother’s sexual exploitation of herself and the child—the decision illustrates how New York courts balance parental rights, the statutory framework of Social Services Law § 384-b, and the child’s best interests and right to permanency.

II. Background and Procedural History

A. The Parties and the Child

The respondent mother, E. SS. (referred to in the opinion as "the mother"), is the biological mother of the subject child, Y. SS., born in 2013. The child’s paternity has never been established (Footnote 1), so this litigation focuses solely on the mother’s parental rights.

B. Initial Neglect Adjudication (2021) and First Appeal

In 2021, the child was adjudicated neglected based on disturbing facts: the mother "agreed to involve the child in her performance of sexual services for money," and the child was involved as "bait for a pedophile." The Third Department previously affirmed that neglect adjudication in Matter of Y. SS. (E. SS.), 211 AD3d 1390 (3d Dept 2022).

C. Order Relieving DSS of Reunification/Reasonable Efforts Obligation

Following the neglect adjudication, DSS moved to be relieved of its obligation to make reasonable efforts to reunite the mother and the child, largely because the mother’s parental rights to several siblings of the child had already been involuntarily terminated. The Family Court granted that relief, and the Third Department affirmed in Matter of Y. SS. (E. SS.), 220 AD3d 1087 (3d Dept 2023), lv denied 41 NY3d 901 (2024).

This prior determination is crucial: in a later permanent neglect proceeding under Social Services Law § 384-b, the agency is ordinarily required to show that it exercised "diligent efforts" to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship. However, once a court has properly relieved the agency of that obligation, the agency does not have to make or prove such efforts in the subsequent termination proceeding.

D. The Permanent Neglect Petition and Family Court Proceedings

DSS thereafter commenced the instant proceeding under Social Services Law § 384-b to:

adjudicate the child as "permanently neglected"; and
terminate the mother’s parental rights, thereby freeing the child for adoption.

The Family Court (Scott Miller, J.) held:

a fact-finding hearing to determine permanent neglect; and
a dispositional hearing to determine whether to terminate parental rights or impose some lesser disposition, such as a suspended judgment.

The Family Court found permanent neglect and terminated the mother’s parental rights. It denied the mother’s request for a suspended judgment and also denied her request for an adjournment to retain new counsel. The court’s determinations rested, in substance, on the mother’s:

ongoing failure to address the issues that led to removal;
failure to secure housing or lawful income;
continued involvement with prostitution, unsafe men, and substance use; and
problematic visitation and communications with the child.

E. Issues on Appeal

On appeal, the mother challenged:

The finding of permanent neglect—particularly in light of her claimed efforts to address issues and maintain contact with the child.
The dispositional choice to terminate her parental rights rather than grant a suspended judgment.
The Family Court’s refusal to adjourn the fact-finding hearing to allow her to retain private counsel and the adequacy of the representation provided by her assigned counsel (this was at least her fourth assigned attorney).

The Third Department, per Presiding Justice Garry, affirmed in all respects.

III. Summary of the Opinion

The Third Department held that:

Because DSS had already been relieved of its obligation to make reasonable efforts toward reunification, the only issue at the fact-finding stage was whether the mother failed to "substantially plan" for the child’s future, proven by clear and convincing evidence.
The evidence, credited by the Family Court, showed that the mother:
- failed to acknowledge her role in the initial neglect;
- continued to engage in prostitution and maintain relationships with unsafe men;
- had no credible lawful income and refused help obtaining assistance;
- continued to use alcohol and illegal drugs and evaded testing;
- failed to secure suitable housing and obstructed required home visits; and
- engaged in problematic visitation practices that harmed the child and prevented any progress beyond limited supervised access.
Taken together, these facts provided a "sound and substantial basis" for the determination that the mother failed to substantially plan for the child’s return, rendering the child permanently neglected.
At the dispositional phase, the "sole concern" was the child’s best interests, with no presumption favoring any particular outcome, including return to the parent. The mother’s late and partial progress, coupled with ongoing deficits in housing, income, and insight, did not justify a suspended judgment.
By contrast, the child was flourishing in a stable, loving foster home with foster parents willing to adopt her, ensuring ongoing therapy and maintaining her relationships with her seven siblings. The child’s sexually inappropriate behaviors had resolved under their care. Termination and adoption were therefore in the child’s best interests.
The Family Court acted within its discretion in denying the mother’s last-minute request to adjourn the fact-finding hearing to obtain private counsel, particularly given her repeated earlier representations that she would retain counsel and her history of conflicts with multiple assigned attorneys.
The mother failed to show that she received less than "meaningful representation." Strategic decisions by counsel—such as not calling certain witnesses, not introducing potentially harmful videos, and not presenting certain text messages or emails—did not establish ineffective assistance, especially absent any showing that such evidence existed, was favorable, and would have changed the outcome. Any lack of hearsay objections was harmless in light of other, properly admitted proof.

IV. Analysis

A. Legal Framework: Permanent Neglect under Social Services Law § 384-b

Social Services Law § 384-b(7)(a) defines a "permanently neglected child" as one who:

"is in the care of an authorized agency and whose parent has failed, for at least one year after the child came into the agency's care, to substantially and continuously or repeatedly plan for the future of the child, although physically and financially able to do so, notwithstanding the agency's diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship"

The statute therefore typically requires the agency to prove two main prongs by clear and convincing evidence:

The agency made "diligent efforts" to reunite the family; and
Despite those efforts, the parent failed to substantially and continuously plan for the child’s future, even though able to do so.

However, where— as here— the agency has been relieved of its efforts obligation in a prior proceeding, the “diligent efforts” prong drops out of the case. This shifts the focus exclusively to the parent’s planning efforts (or lack thereof).

1. "Substantial Planning" Standard

The court quotes and relies on Matter of Konner N. [Justin O.], 235 AD3d 1112, 1115 (3d Dept 2025), which in turn synthesizes earlier case law:

"To substantially plan, a parent must, at a minimum, take meaningful steps to correct the conditions that led to the child's initial removal."

This encapsulates a key principle:

"Planning" is not satisfied by mere expressions of love, irregular participation in services, or ongoing contact with the child.
The parent must show concrete, sustained actions that address the specific problems—here, sexual exploitation of the child, unsafe relationships, and substance abuse—that caused the child’s removal.

2. Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard

The opinion, citing Matter of Ruth C. [Jaslene C.], 226 AD3d 677, 679 (2d Dept 2024), reiterates that the failure to substantially plan must be established by "clear and convincing evidence." This is a heightened civil standard, constitutionally required for termination of parental rights cases: the proof must be highly and strongly convincing, though not as stringent as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

B. Application to the Facts: Failure to "Substantially Plan"

The Third Department meticulously connects the evidentiary record to the statutory standard and the "substantial planning" case law. The key factual findings include:

1. Failure to Acknowledge the Underlying Neglect

The court emphasizes that the mother "failed to acknowledge her role in the underlying neglect"—namely, her prostitution and use of the child "as bait for a pedophile." This lack of insight is central:

Without acknowledging the harm and risk created, a parent is unlikely to change behavior or effectively engage in services.
New York appellate courts repeatedly treat a parent’s persistent denial or minimization of serious misconduct (especially sexual exploitation or abuse) as a strong indicator that the parent has not taken the necessary "meaningful steps" to correct conditions leading to removal.

2. Ongoing High-Risk Behaviors: Prostitution, Unsafe Associates, and Substance Use

The court notes that after removal:

The mother "continued to have contact with unsafe men and to exchange sex for money."
There was "no credible evidence" of lawful income sufficient to support the child, and she "repeatedly refused help" obtaining public or private assistance.
She "continued to use alcohol and illegal drugs," violating imposed conditions, and "repeatedly evaded" random screenings.

These facts go to the core of substantial planning:

Persistence in the same high-risk, illegal conduct that originally endangered the child demonstrates that the parent has not corrected or even meaningfully confronted the underlying conditions.
Refusal of offered supports (financial or rehabilitative) further shows lack of planning, since the agency’s role is to offer services and guidance, not to compel use of resources the parent actively rejects.

3. Housing Instability and Resistance to Home Visits

The mother "failed to obtain suitable housing, free from infestation," and "refused to let petitioner conduct required home visits on multiple occasions." Adequate housing and cooperation with home inspections are classic planning benchmarks:

Inability or refusal to secure safe housing undermines any practical plan for the child’s return.
Refusal to permit home visits suggests either problematic living conditions or a lack of cooperation with oversight—both incompatible with a sustainable reunification plan.

4. Visitation and Its Negative Impact on the Child

Although the mother "maintained contact with the child," the court details serious deficiencies:

She was "late to, missed or cut short a significant number of visits and calls."
She discussed court proceedings with the child.
She engaged in "demeaning commentary and play" during visits.
These behaviors were observed to cause negative impacts on the child’s emotional condition.
The mother "was unable to progress beyond [what the opinion describes as] unsupervised visitation for one hour per week."

This is important for at least two reasons:

New York courts stress that "maintaining contact" alone is insufficient; visitation must be consistent, appropriate, and supportive. Here, contact was often missed, shortened, or harmful in content.
The inability to progress to more liberal visitation (despite the length of time involved) is an objective marker that the parent has not sufficiently addressed underlying issues or gained the trust of the agency and court.

5. Limited Mental Health Engagement

The mother "participated in some mental health services," but she simultaneously "denied the need for treatment." This reflects a pattern:

Token participation in services, without genuine engagement or insight into the reasons for treatment, does not satisfy the planning requirement.
Courts often view such behavior as compliance for appearance’s sake rather than substantive change.

6. Synthesis: Why These Facts Equal Permanent Neglect

In concluding that these facts amount to permanent neglect, the court relies on a familiar line of Third Department cases: Matter of Asiah S. [Nancy S.], 228 AD3d 1034 (3d Dept 2024); Matter of Nikole V. [Norman V.], 224 AD3d 1102 (3d Dept 2024); Matter of Desirea F. [Angela H.], 217 AD3d 1064 (3d Dept 2023); and Matter of Makayla I. [Sheena K.], 201 AD3d 1145 (3d Dept 2022), among others. Those cases collectively stand for the proposition that:

A parent’s continuation of the behaviors that led to removal, failure to secure stable housing and income, limited or harmful visitation, and superficial engagement with services support a finding of failure to substantially plan.
Maintaining some level of contact with the child does not, by itself, avoid a permanent neglect finding.

The opinion characterizes the Family Court’s determination as having a "sound and substantial basis" in the record—an appellate standard that signifies deference to the trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessments, as long as they are reasonably supported by the evidence.

C. Disposition: Best Interests and the Denial of a Suspended Judgment

1. Governing Standards

Once permanent neglect is established, the proceeding moves to a separate dispositional stage. The opinion reinforces two key principles, citing Matter of Jason O. [Stephanie O.], 188 AD3d 1463, 1467 (3d Dept 2020) and Matter of Issac Q. [Kimberly R.], 212 AD3d 1049, 1054 (3d Dept 2023):

"Following an adjudication of permanent neglect, the sole concern at a dispositional hearing is the best interests of the child[,] and there is no presumption that any particular disposition, including the return of a child to a parent, promotes such interests."

Thus, the equities reset: prior parental rights do not create a presumption in favor of return. The court must choose among possible dispositions—including termination, suspended judgment, or in rare cases, return—based purely on the child’s best interests at that time.

2. What Is a Suspended Judgment?

A suspended judgment, governed by Family Ct Act § 633 and interpreted in cases such as Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299 (1992), is essentially a probationary disposition:

The court withholds immediate termination of parental rights and imposes conditions (e.g., continued treatment, stable housing, no substance use).
If the parent successfully complies during the suspension period, the court may avoid termination and allow reunification or another less-drastic outcome.

The court here quotes Matter of Carmela D. [Shameeka G.], 232 AD3d 1126 (3d Dept 2024), which synthesizes the modern rule:

"[A] suspended judgment is only appropriate where a parent has made significant progress[,] such that a brief grace period would allow him or her to demonstrate the ability to be a fit parent, and such delay is consistent with the child's best interests."

3. The Mother’s Belated Progress

At the dispositional hearing, the mother:

"finally acknowledged" that she had neglected the child, but still minimized her conduct, and the Family Court "continued to question her honesty."
Had "recently reengaged in certain services," but still lacked:
- safe, stable living conditions; and
- credible evidence of lawful income.

The Third Department characterizes these as "limited, belated efforts" viewed against "her longstanding failures to address the underlying issues."

Under Carmela D. and related cases, such last-minute improvements rarely justify a suspended judgment, particularly in a long-running case where the child has developed strong bonds and stability elsewhere.

4. The Child’s Best Interests and the Foster Placement

By contrast, the record showed that:

The foster parents provided a "stable, loving environment," with the child engaged in "enriching activities."
They served as an "adoptive resource" and ensured regular counseling.
They proactively helped the child "maintain a relationship with her seven biological siblings."
Critically, the child had made "significant progress" in foster care to the point that she "no longer exhibited the sexually inappropriate behavior that she did upon her removal from the mother's care."
The attorney for the child affirmatively supported termination as in the child’s best interests (Footnote 2).

These facts reflect a classic best-interests calculus:

The child’s trajectory in foster care is strongly positive—emotionally, behaviorally, and relationally.
The child’s need for permanency and stability, including adoption, is both immediate and compelling, given her trauma and the length of time out of the mother’s care.
A suspended judgment would prolong uncertainty and expose the child to the risk of future disruption and harm if the mother relapsed or failed to maintain gains.

Accordingly, the appellate court gives "appropriate deference" to the Family Court’s credibility determinations and factual findings and affirms the decision to terminate parental rights, explicitly citing Matter of Asiah S. [Nancy S.] and Matter of Issac Q. [Kimberly R.] as doctrinal anchors.

D. Right to Counsel, Adjournments, and Effective Assistance

1. Denial of Adjournment to Retain New Counsel

The mother argued that she was denied a fair hearing when Family Court refused to adjourn the fact-finding hearing so she could retain private counsel. The opinion recites the context:

The mother had already been assigned four attorneys. She sought replacement of the fourth, alleging breakdowns in communication.
The Family Court found that the breakdowns were attributable to the mother, not counsel, and denied her application for yet another assigned attorney.
The court expressly informed her she remained free to retain private counsel.
Over the next five weeks, she did not actually retain private counsel.
On the morning of the fact-finding hearing, she requested an adjournment to do so. The court denied the adjournment, noting her repeated (but unfulfilled) representations that she would retain counsel.
Nonetheless, the court did not start testimony that day; instead, it used the day for the mother and assigned counsel to prepare, and there would be an additional two weeks before the mother would present her own case and witnesses.

The Third Department, citing Family Ct Act § 626(a), concludes that this was a "sound exercise of discretion." Section 626(a) gives Family Court broad latitude in managing adjournments to prevent unnecessary delay, particularly in child welfare matters where permanency is a statutory priority.

The decision reflects two policy considerations:

Parents have a right to counsel and, when eligible, to assigned counsel.
They do not have an unlimited right to serial substitution of assigned counsel or to indefinite delays while they repeatedly announce—but do not complete—efforts to retain private counsel.

2. Effective Assistance: "Meaningful Representation" Standard

On the merits of counsel’s performance, the court cites Matter of Ronan L. [Jeana K.], 195 AD3d 1072, 1077 (3d Dept 2021), and Matter of Duane FF. [Harley GG.], 154 AD3d 1086, 1088 (3d Dept 2017), for the constitutional standard:

"So long as the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation, a [parent's] constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel will have been met."

This is a context-specific, holistic standard. It does not require perfect representation; strategic decisions, even if debatable in hindsight, are not grounds for reversal absent prejudice and lack of legitimate strategy.

3. Specific Allegations of Ineffectiveness

The mother identified several alleged deficiencies:

Failure to call her mental health or substance abuse counselors as witnesses;
Failure to present text messages or emails in her possession;
Failure to introduce certain video recordings taken during visits (which included inappropriate conversations between her and the child);
Failure to call a male friend as a witness (who had engaged in questionable conduct during visits);
Failure to object to some evidence on hearsay grounds.

The court responds in detail:

Uncalled counselors: Citing Matter of Dianne SS. v Jamie TT., 235 AD3d 1138, 1143 (3d Dept 2025) and Matter of Madelyn V. [Lucas W.-Jared V.], 199 AD3d 1249, 1252 (3d Dept 2021), the court holds that the mother failed to show that the decision not to call these witnesses lacked a legitimate strategic basis. It was speculative to assume their testimony would have been more favorable than the existing record on her treatment.
Texts and emails: Relying on Matter of Traci A. v Maxmillion B., 232 AD3d 1070, 1074 (3d Dept 2024) and Matter of Jacklyn PP. v Jonathan QQ., 221 AD3d 1293, 1298 (3d Dept 2023), the court finds it speculative to claim that these documents would have changed the outcome, especially given the absence of proof that they existed, or what they would show.
Visit videos and male friend: Counsel’s election not to introduce videos that captured "inappropriate conversation" between the mother and child, or to call a male friend who engaged in "questionable conduct" during visits, clearly had a strategic rationale: such evidence risked reinforcing, not rebutting, the agency’s case.
Unobjected hearsay: Any hearsay that slipped in without objection "merely restated" already-established facts or was unnecessary to the permanent neglect finding. Citing Traci A. and the prior neglect case, Matter of Y. SS. [E. SS.], 211 AD3d 1390, 1393 (3d Dept 2022), the court concludes that any errors were harmless and did not affect the outcome.

Finally, the opinion notes that counsel "effectively cross-examined witnesses, lodged appropriate objections and presented cogent arguments upon summation." Consistent with prior case law such as Matter of Jase M. [Holly N.], 190 AD3d 1238, 1243 (3d Dept 2021), the court holds that the mother did not meet her burden to show representation fell below the constitutional standard of meaningful representation.

E. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The opinion weaves a dense network of precedent to support its holdings. While the full facts of those decisions are not recited, the principles for which they are cited can be summarized as follows:

Matter of Asiah S. [Nancy S.], 228 AD3d 1034 (3d Dept 2024) – Quoted for the statutory definition of permanent neglect and repeatedly cited as a recent, factually analogous case upholding termination where the parent failed to adequately plan and a stable foster placement supported adoption.
Matter of Daimeon MM. [Laurie MM.], 230 AD3d 1416 (3d Dept 2024) – Cited with Asiah S. for the statutory framework of permanent neglect under Social Services Law § 384-b(7)(a).
Matter of Y. SS. [E. SS.], 220 AD3d 1087 (3d Dept 2023) – Prior appeal in this very family’s litigation, upholding the order relieving DSS of "reasonable efforts" toward reunification. It directly authorizes the narrowed inquiry in the present case.
Matter of Ruth C. [Jaslene C.], 226 AD3d 677 (2d Dept 2024) – Cited for the rule that where the agency is relieved of efforts, the burden in a permanent neglect proceeding is to show failure to plan by clear and convincing evidence, without a diligent-efforts showing.
Matter of Konner N. [Justin O.], 235 AD3d 1112 (3d Dept 2025) – Provides the key articulation of "substantial planning" as requiring "meaningful steps" to remedy the conditions leading to removal.
Matter of Jase M. [Holly N.], 190 AD3d 1238 (3d Dept 2021) – Used both for substantial planning principles and for the meaningful representation standard in evaluating counsel’s performance.
Matter of Nikole V. [Norman V.], 224 AD3d 1102 (3d Dept 2024); Matter of Desirea F. [Angela H.], 217 AD3d 1064 (3d Dept 2023); Matter of Makayla I. [Sheena K.], 201 AD3d 1145 (3d Dept 2022) – Cited collectively to support that failure to correct underlying conditions, combined with inconsistent or harmful contact, supports a permanent neglect finding.
Matter of Jason O. [Stephanie O.], 188 AD3d 1463 (3d Dept 2020); Matter of Issac Q. [Kimberly R.], 212 AD3d 1049 (3d Dept 2023) – Cited for the proposition that best interests is the only concern at disposition, with no presumption favoring any disposition, even return to the parent.
Matter of Carmela D. [Shameeka G.], 232 AD3d 1126 (3d Dept 2024); Family Ct Act § 633; Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299 (1992) – Together, they lay out when a suspended judgment is appropriate: only where the parent has made significant progress, a short grace period could realistically demonstrate lasting fitness, and the delay is compatible with the child’s best interests.
Family Ct Act § 626(a) – Cited for the court’s discretionary power to manage adjournments; supports denial of the mother’s last-minute adjournment.
Matter of Ronan L. [Jeana K.], 195 AD3d 1072 (3d Dept 2021); Matter of Duane FF. [Harley GG.], 154 AD3d 1086 (3d Dept 2017) – Provide the "meaningful representation" standard for effective assistance in Family Court.
Matter of Dianne SS. v Jamie TT., 235 AD3d 1138 (3d Dept 2025); Matter of Madelyn V. [Lucas W.-Jared V.], 199 AD3d 1249 (3d Dept 2021) – Cited for the principle that decisions about calling or not calling particular witnesses are typically strategic and not grounds for ineffective assistance absent clear prejudice.
Matter of Traci A. v Maxmillion B., 232 AD3d 1070 (3d Dept 2024); Matter of Jacklyn PP. v Jonathan QQ., 221 AD3d 1293 (3d Dept 2023) – Cited both for speculation about unproduced evidence (like texts/emails) being insufficient to show prejudice and for harmless error analysis regarding hearsay.
Matter of Y. SS. [E. SS.], 211 AD3d 1390 (3d Dept 2022) – The original neglect appeal, invoked again to show that some of the facts the mother complains about as hearsay were already proven in the earlier proceeding or otherwise undisputed.

Taken together, these precedents show the Third Department applying a settled doctrinal framework while tailoring its analysis to the extraordinary facts of sexual exploitation and entrenched parental dysfunction.

V. Complex Concepts Simplified

Permanent neglect (Social Services Law § 384-b(7)): A legal status for a child in agency care when, for at least one year, the parent (despite being able to) has not made substantial, sustained efforts to plan for the child’s future, even after the agency offers help. Here, because DSS had already been excused from making efforts, the focus was solely on the mother’s failure to plan.
"Substantial planning": Not just visiting or saying one wants the child back. It means taking real, practical steps to fix the problems that caused removal—such as ending illegal conduct, maintaining sobriety, securing safe housing, and meaningfully participating in services.
Diligent/reasonable efforts: The services and actions an agency usually must provide to help a parent reunify with a child (e.g., visitation, referrals, casework counseling). When a court relieves the agency of this obligation (often due to severe abuse or repeated terminations), the agency need not prove such efforts in a later permanent neglect case.
Clear and convincing evidence: A standard of proof in civil cases that requires a high level of certainty; it is more demanding than "more likely than not" but less than "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Suspended judgment: A probation-like outcome after a permanent neglect finding. Termination is put on hold while the parent is given a fixed period to meet strict conditions. If the parent succeeds, termination may be avoided; if not, termination generally follows.
Best interests of the child: The guiding standard at disposition. The court examines what will best serve the child’s safety, stability, emotional development, permanency, and relationships—without any automatic preference for the biological parent once neglect or permanent neglect has been found.
Sound and substantial basis: The appellate court’s deferential standard when reviewing Family Court’s factual and credibility findings. The question is whether the record reasonably supports the findings; the appellate court does not reweigh evidence from scratch.
Meaningful representation (effective assistance of counsel): In Family Court, a parent is entitled to counsel who, considering the case as a whole, provides reasonable, competent advocacy—cross-examining witnesses, raising relevant objections, and making arguments based on law and fact. Perfection is not required; strategies that seem imperfect in hindsight are not enough to show ineffective assistance without clear prejudice.

VI. Impact and Future Implications

A. Clarifying Permanent Neglect When Reunification Efforts Are Waived

The decision strengthens the line of New York cases holding that once an agency has been validly relieved of its reunification/efforts obligation, a permanent neglect petition can proceed on a narrowed inquiry focused on the parent’s failure to plan. Practically:

Agencies in similar circumstances can rely on prior "no reasonable efforts" orders and need not re-litigate their diligence in the termination phase.
Parents cannot argue that the agency failed to help them adequately once such an order is in place; the focus shifts squarely to what the parent has actually done to change.

B. Substantial Planning in Cases of Sexual Exploitation

The case is particularly significant where the underlying neglect involves sexual exploitation of the child. It underscores that:

Continued prostitution and associations with unsafe men, even after the child’s removal, are fundamentally incompatible with reunification.
A parent’s refusal to admit the wrongfulness and harm of using a child in such a context is a powerful indicator that the conditions of removal have not been remedied.

Future cases involving sexual abuse or exploitation are likely to cite this decision to emphasize that meaningful insight and cessation of risky behavior are indispensable elements of substantial planning.

C. Narrowing the Availability of Suspended Judgments

Matter of Y. SS. (E. SS.) further narrows the circumstances in which a suspended judgment will be considered appropriate after a long history of neglect and failed services. The court’s emphasis on:

the timing of the parent’s progress (late in the case);
its limited nature (partial engagement, unresolved issues); and
the child’s strong progress and stability in foster care with an adoptive resource

will serve as guidance to trial courts weighing whether to grant suspended judgments. It sends a clear message:

Where a child has already achieved safety, healing, and strong bonds in an adoptive home, and the parent’s improvements are both recent and incomplete, extending the case through a suspended judgment will rarely be in the child’s best interests.

D. Managing Counsel Substitution and Adjournment Requests in TPR Cases

The opinion reinforces that:

Courts may deny repeated or last-minute requests for new assigned counsel where prior breakdowns are attributable to the parent and there has been ample time to retain private counsel.
Termination of parental rights proceedings cannot be indefinitely delayed by tactical or dilatory attempts to change counsel at critical junctures.

At the same time, the court underscores that parents must still receive meaningful representation. The decision models an appellate approach that:

Carefully examines alleged deficiencies in counsel’s performance; but
Declines to second-guess strategic choices absent a clear showing of lack of strategy and prejudice.

This may deter future appeals that rest on speculative or generalized complaints about counsel, particularly where the record shows active advocacy and no plausible alternate outcome.

E. Emphasis on Child-Centered Outcomes and Permanency

Consistent with broader statutory and case law trends, the opinion’s structure underscores:

At fact-finding, the focus is on the parent’s conduct relative to the statutory definition of permanent neglect.
At disposition, the focus shifts entirely to the child’s present and future best interests, free of presumptions about biological ties.

The detailed discussion of the child’s emotional recovery, stable foster family, sibling contact, and improved behavior reflects a modern, trauma-informed view of the child’s needs. The opinion implicitly affirms that when a child has finally achieved stability after significant trauma, the law will not lightly risk reintroducing instability in the name of parental second chances.

VII. Conclusion

Matter of Y. SS. (E. SS.), 2025 NY Slip Op 06562, is a significant Third Department decision in the law of permanent neglect and termination of parental rights. It:

Clarifies that where an agency has been relieved of its obligation to make reasonable efforts toward reunification, the permanent neglect inquiry centers on the parent’s failure to substantially plan, proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Applies and reinforces the substantial planning standard in a context of extreme underlying neglect—sexual exploitation—highlighting the necessity of genuine insight, cessation of dangerous behaviors, and concrete steps toward stability.
Reaffirms that at disposition, the child’s best interests alone govern, and that suspended judgment is appropriate only where meaningful, timely parental progress makes a brief grace period both realistic and compatible with the child’s need for permanency.
Confirms that courts have broad discretion to manage adjournments and to curb serial requests for new counsel, while restating the "meaningful representation" standard that governs claims of ineffective assistance in Family Court.

In broader context, the decision continues New York’s evolution toward a child-centered, permanency-focused approach in severe neglect and abuse cases. It signals that courts will not hesitate to terminate parental rights where, after years of intervention, the parent has not addressed the root causes of removal, particularly when the child is thriving in a stable pre-adoptive home.

Permanent Neglect Without Agency Reunification Efforts and Limits on Suspended Judgments and Counsel Substitution: Commentary on Matter of Y. SS. (E. SS.), 2025 NY Slip Op 06562 (3d Dept)