Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court’s reasoning draws on a well-established line of Second Department authority governing permanent neglect under Social Services Law § 384-b.

• Matter of Christopher C. [Sonia C.], 235 AD3d 865 and Matter of Naijah-S.G.B. [Thomas X.B.], 230 AD3d 1314:
  • Reaffirm the threshold requirement that the agency must show, by clear and convincing evidence, “diligent efforts” to reunify—counseling, arranging access, helping resolve impediments to discharge, and keeping the parent informed of the child’s progress (see § 384-b[7][f]).
  • These cases anchor the Court’s articulation of the agency’s duties and frame the analysis here.
• Matter of William S.L. [Julio A.L.], 195 AD3d 839:
  • Clarifies that agencies are not required to guarantee parental success in overcoming challenges. This principle is pivotal where a parent “completes” services but does not internalize or apply them.
• Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087:
  • Holds that diligent efforts are satisfied where the agency encounters an uncooperative parent. Applied here to the father’s resistance to coaching and redirection.
• Matter of Geddiah S.R. [Seljeana P.], 195 AD3d 725 and Matter of Samantha B. [Cynthia J.], 159 AD3d 1006:
  • Once diligent efforts are shown, the agency must prove the parent failed to maintain contact or plan, though able to do so (§ 384-b[7][a], [c]). “Planning” includes creating an adequate and stable home within a reasonable time.
• Matter of Christopher John B. [Christopher B.], 87 AD3d 1133:
  • Defines the planning requirement—steps necessary to provide an adequate, stable home within a reasonable time frame—cited to explain the “plan for the child’s future” prong.
• Matter of Derrick D.A. [Shavonna L.L.D.], 134 AD3d 928:
  • Instructs appellate courts to defer to Family Court credibility findings, given its superior vantage point.
• Matter of Joelle V.H. [Salvatore R.], 227 AD3d 1077 and Matter of Innocence A.M.-F. [Khadijah N.M.-F.], 173 AD3d 869:
  • Illustrate what adequate diligent efforts look like; the Court uses them to compare and uphold the agency’s efforts here.
• Matter of Anthony A.R. [Taicha M.P.], 234 AD3d 696 and Matter of Jessica U. [Stephanie U.], 152 AD3d 1001:
  • Stand for the proposition central to this case: service completion alone is not dispositive; the parent must show insight into the issues necessitating removal and translate services into safe, appropriate parenting behavior.

Taken together, these authorities form a coherent framework: agencies must provide meaningful reunification services, but the parent must do more than attend—he or she must engage, learn, and demonstrate change. The Second Department applies that framework to the record here.

Legal Reasoning

1. Threshold: Diligent Efforts by the Agency

   Under § 384-b(7), the Children’s Aid Society had to prove diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent–child relationship. The Court emphasized concrete, individualized efforts:

   • Consistent, twice-weekly supervised parental access;
   • A mental health evaluation tailored to service planning;
   • Referrals to parenting and anger management classes;
   • A dedicated parental access coach to improve the quality and safety of visits.

   These measures mirror and even exceed the statutory illustrations of diligent efforts. The inclusion of a parental access coach is a particularly salient data point: it demonstrates the agency’s move from generic to targeted services designed to address observed deficits during visits.

   The Court reiterates that agencies need not guarantee a parent’s success and that an uncooperative parent does not defeat a finding of diligent efforts. Here, the father’s resistance to redirection and aggressive conduct toward staff underscored that the agency’s role has limits—it must offer meaningful help, not ensure results.

2. Parent’s Failure to Plan and Lack of Insight

   Once diligent efforts are established, the focus shifts to whether the parent maintained contact and planned for the child’s future during the relevant period. The Court found that, despite completing certain services, the father:

   • Failed to manage the children during supervised access—allowing or even encouraging unsafe behaviors (throwing items, kicking, hitting, biting, fighting);
   • Ignored or resisted the coach’s and caseworkers’ redirections;
   • Berated staff and behaved aggressively, undermining the reunification process.

   These facts demonstrated a lack of “insight” into the precipitating issues (why the children were removed and what conditions had to change for safe return). “Insight” is not a mere mental state; it is measured by observable, safer parenting conduct over time, especially in the structured setting of supervised access. On that measure, the father fell short.

3. Standard of Proof and Appellate Deference

   The agency’s burden was clear and convincing evidence. The Court credited the Family Court’s credibility determinations—accorded “great deference”—and concluded the evidentiary record met the heightened standard. On appeal, the father’s remaining contention was deemed not properly before the Court.

4. Disposition and Procedural Posture

   After finding permanent neglect, the Family Court proceeded to disposition and terminated parental rights, transferring guardianship and custody for adoption. The Second Department affirmed that disposition. Procedurally, the appeal from the fact-finding order was dismissed as superseded by the disposition order (a routine appellate practice), and the children’s attorney’s motion to strike portions of the father’s reply brief was denied.

Impact and Forward-Looking Implications

• Service Completion vs. Demonstrated Change: This decision reinforces that certificates of completion are not a shield against permanent neglect findings. What matters is whether the parent translates services into improved, safe parenting behavior and genuine understanding of the issues necessitating removal.
• Expanded View of Diligent Efforts: The Court’s endorsement of measures such as a mental health evaluation and a parenting/parental access coach illustrates the breadth of “diligent efforts.” Agencies that tailor services to observed needs and document those efforts put themselves in a stronger position to meet the threshold burden.
• Conduct During Supervised Access Is Probative: The father’s inability to manage behavior and occasional encouragement of inappropriate conduct during supervised visits were central. Practitioners should recognize supervised access as a proving ground: safety, responsiveness to coaching, and respectful engagement with staff are critical indicators of parental readiness.
• Deference to Family Court Fact-Finding: Because credibility and behavioral assessments are pivotal and fact-intensive, appellate courts will typically defer to Family Court unless the record compels a contrary conclusion. This deference raises the premium on meticulous contemporaneous documentation at the trial level.
• Practice Guidance for Parents and Counsel:
  • Engage with services proactively; ask for feedback; demonstrate skill use consistently during visits.
  • Document progress and seek additional supports (e.g., coaching, therapy) if struggles persist in visits.
  • Maintain cooperative, respectful interactions with agency staff; resistance or hostility can be viewed as undermining reunification.
• Agency Practice Pointers:
  • Taylor services to concrete, observed needs (e.g., coaching for visit management; targeted mental health interventions).
  • Keep detailed records of services offered, attendance, parent receptiveness, and behavioral changes (or lack thereof) over time.
  • Use redirection notes and coaching logs to demonstrate both the effort and the parent’s response.