Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Docket Number CV-24-1142 See more information ... Smart Summary Please sign up to generate summary. OPINION ORIGINAL PDF To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe. Matter of Matthew R. (Jaqueline R.) Matter of Matthew R. (Jaqueline R.) 2026 NY Slip Op 06180 October 22, 2026 Appellate Division, Third 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 Matthew R., Alleged to be a Permanently Neglected Child. Albany County Department for Children, Youth and Families, Respondent; Jaqueline R., Appellant. Decided and Entered:October 22, 2026 CV-24-1142 Calendar Date: September 16, 2026 Before: Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.P., Fisher, Mcshan, Mackey And Corcoran, JJ. Amanda FiggsGanter, Albany, for appellant. Jeffery Jamison, County Attorney, Albany (Nicole E. Coudari of counsel), for respondent. William V. O'Leary, Albany, attorney for the child. [*1] Corcoran, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Albany County (Sherri Brooks-Morton, J.), entered May 22, 2024, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, to adjudicate the subject child to be permanently neglected, and terminated respondent's parental rights. Respondent (hereinafter the mother) is the mother of a child (born in 2019) who was removed from her care shortly after his birth and placed in the temporary care and custody of petitioner. Petitioner commenced a neglect proceeding against the mother and, in October 2020, the child was adjudicated to have been neglected by her. Family Court continued the child's placement with petitioner and directed the mother to, among other things, engage with recommended mental health treatment and domestic violence counseling and "maintain a safe, stable, clean home for the child[ ]." Petitioner commenced this proceeding in 2022, seeking to adjudicate the subject child to be permanently neglected and to terminate the mother's parental rights. Following a fact-finding hearing, Family Court issued an order in April 2023 determining that the child was permanently neglected. The matter proceeded to a dispositional hearing, after which Family Court issued an order in January 2024 determining that the care and custody of the child should be committed to petitioner for purposes of adoption. The January 2024 order further directed that petitioner submit a proposed order of fact-finding and disposition consistent with the April 2023 and January 2024 orders. The mother appeals from the ensuing order. To begin, the attorney for the child advises us that the child was adopted during the pendency of this appeal and, notwithstanding the mother's claim to the contrary, this renders her challenge to the disposition moot (see Matter of Nikole V. [Norman V.], 224 AD3d 1102, 1102 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 41 NY3d 909 [2024]; Matter of Amari F. [Haley F.], 217 AD3d 1063, 1063-1064 [3d Dept 2023]). The mother's challenge to the underlying finding of permanent neglect remains live, however, as that adjudication carries a "permanent and significant stigma which is capable of affecting a parent's status in potential future proceedings" (Matter of Matthew C., 227 AD2d 679, 680 [3d Dept 1996]; see Matter of Nikole V. [Norman V.], 224 AD3d at 1102-1103; Matter of Iyanna KK. [Edward KK.], 141 AD3d 885, 886 [3d Dept 2016]). We accordingly turn to the merits of the mother's arguments on that issue and affirm. The mother first argues that Family Court terminated her parental rights upon a ground that was not alleged or proven by petitioner because the appealed-from order refers to a finding of abandonment as opposed to permanent neglect (see Social Services Law § 384-b [5], [7]). Even the mother acknowledges that the "legal framework and detailed" findings of that order "unmistakably address permanent neglect," however, and our review confirms that the order relies upon, and quotes [*2]at length from, the April 2023 order in which Family Court made the requisite finding of permanent neglect. As the references to abandonment were clearly scrivener's errors that did not impact the substantial rights of the mother under those circumstances, we disregard them as "inconsequential and nonprejudicial" (Matter of De Paula v Memory Gardens, 90 AD2d 886, 886 [3d Dept 1982]; see CPLR 2001, 2002; cf. Matter of Jessica PP., 23 AD3d 953, 954 [3d Dept 2005]). "As relevant here, a permanently neglected child is one 'who is in the care of an authorized agency and whose parent or custodian has failed for a period of . . . at least one year or [15] out of the most recent [22] months following the date such child came into the care of an authorized agency . . . [to] 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 1 relationship' " (Matter of Aliano E. [Alan E.], 250 AD3d 1187, 1188 [3d Dept 2026], quoting Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; see Matter of Skyler O. [Crystal L.], 251 AD3d 1194, 1194 [3d Dept 2026]; Matter of Gina P. [Shannon O.], 242 AD3d 1328, 1328-1329 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 45 NY3d 904 [2026]). Stated differently, "in a permanent neglect proceeding, the petitioner bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence, first, that it made such diligent efforts, and, second, that the respondent failed to plan for the child's future" (Matter of Gina P. [Shannon O.], 242 AD3d at 1329 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Matter of Jack V. [Jack U.], 243 AD3d 1174, 1176 [3d Dept 2025]). We accord great weight to Family Court's factual findings and credibility determinations in assessing whether petitioner met that burden, and will not disturb those findings so long as they are supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Nikole V. [Norman V.], 224 AD3d at 1103). Petitioner presented testimony at the fact-finding hearing from a number of individuals who were involved in the mother's case and provided services to her between 2019 and 2022. Those individuals explained that the major hurdles preventing the return of the child to the mother's care were her unaddressed mental health challenges, problems with the cleanliness and safety of her housing and concerns about her prior abusive relationships. The proof reflected that petitioner facilitated regular visits between the mother and the child and attempted to address the issues that prevented the mother from safely caring for him by, among other things, consulting with her mental health counselor, connecting her with domestic violence treatment services and encouraging her to reduce her grueling work schedule. Petitioner supported and helped the mother to rectify her unsuitable living conditions, which included accumulating clutter in her home caused by her hoarding problem and unsanitary conditions created by her [*3]penchant for harboring numerous untrained animals. Family Court properly determined from the foregoing that petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence, that it had made diligent efforts to both strengthen the mother's relationship with the child and ameliorate the concerns that prevented reunification (see Matter of Aliano E. [Alan E.], 250 AD3d at 1189-1190; Matter of Nikole V. [Norman V.], 224 AD3d at 1104-1105). Turning to whether the mother failed to plan for the child's future, the proof reflected that she progressed from supervised to unsupervised visits with the child between 2019 and 2022 but was unable to adequately address the various challenges that prevented reunification. The mother moved several times during that period and eventually found better housing, but remained incapable of maintaining a clean and safe residence. Indeed, several witnesses described how she began accumulating new items that cluttered her residence after receiving help to move other items into storage and how she acquired new pets that were not housebroken to replace the ones that she had given away. Moreover, although the mother engaged to some extent with mental health services, a case manager who worked with her described that engagement as inadequate because her counselor neither consulted with petitioner nor knew about the condition of her residence and other hurdles to reunification. The mother also consistently worked 80 hours a week, despite extensive efforts by caseworkers to explain why she could not care for the very young child on her own with that schedule and how her plan to place him in overnight daycare was unrealistic; she sought to address the issue by quitting one of her jobs while continuing to work 80 hours a week at the other. There is no reason to doubt that the mother loves the child, and she testified to her willingness to further curtail her work schedule and redouble her efforts to keep a clean and safe residence for the child if he was returned to her care. Family Court nevertheless credited the proof at the fact-finding hearing that the mother had not meaningfully planned for the child's future during the years that he was in petitioner's care and, thus, properly found that the mother had permanently neglected the child (see Matter of Chloe B. [Sareena B.], 189 AD3d 2011, 2013-2014 [3d Dept 2020]; Matter of Derick L. [Michael L.], 166 AD3d 1325, 1327 [3d Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 915 [2019]). To the extent that they are not addressed by the foregoing, the mother's remaining arguments have been considered and found to be lacking in merit. Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.P., Fisher, McShan and Mackey, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs. 2