There was clear and convincing evidence to support Family Court's finding that respondent mother had permanently neglected the subject children by failing to complete a drug rehabilitation program or to remain drug-free notwithstanding petitioner agency's diligent efforts for over one year to elicit petitioner's compliance in addressing her drug addiction (see, Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a]; Matter of Richard X., 226 A.D.2d 762, 763-764, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 808; Matter of Michael M., 172 A.D.2d 152). Although respondent participated in drug rehabilitation programs, the finding of permanent neglect against her is nonetheless warranted since respondent did not complete the programs she began and, the underlying problem never having been successfully ameliorated, did not remain drug-free (Matter of Tiwana M., 267 A.D.2d 144, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13244; Matter of Amanda R., 215 A.D.2d 220, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 705). In light of the essentially unaddressed problem underlying the permanent neglect finding against respondent, Family Court properly exercised its discretion in declining to enter a suspended judgment (see, Matter of Lameek L., 226 A.D.2d 464;Matter of Latesha Nicole M., 219 A.D.2d 521; Matter of Juan Andres R., 216 A.D.2d 145). Finally, under all the relevant circumstances, termination of respondent's parental rights so as to permit the adoption process to move forward was properly found by Family Court to be in the best interests of the subject children (Matter of Amanda R., supra).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.