2026 NY Slip Op 05615
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 J.M.W. also known as J.W., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Kassandra F.W., Respondent-Appellant, Good Shepherd Services, Petitioner-Respondent.
Decided and Entered: October 01, 2026
Docket No. B-38881/19|Appeal No. 7104|Case No. 2025-01671|
Before: Moulton, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Michael, Hagler, JJ.
Heath J. Goldstein, Jamica, for appellant.
Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Polixene Petrakopoulos of counsel), attorney for the child.
Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper), Family Court, Bronx County (Gigi N. Parris, J.), entered on or about March 11, 2025, which, after a hearing, 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 for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence that despite the agency's diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, the mother failed to plan for the child's future during the statutory period (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). The agency made diligent efforts by, among other things, scheduling visitation and therapeutic sessions with the child and encouraging the mother to attend them and engage in services (see id. § 384-b [7] [f]).
Although the mother preserved her objections to the credibility of the case planner's testimony regarding the agency's diligent efforts, the court's credibility determinations are accorded great deference and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776, 777 [1975]). The record does not support the mother's characterization of the case planner's testimony as false and misleading. Neither the alleged discrepancies in the testimony nor the case planner's communications with the foster parent undermine the testimony with respect to her outreach efforts. The court therefore providently credited that testimony.
Although financially and physically able to visit the child consistently, the mother failed to do so, attending less than half of the scheduled visits and therapy sessions (see Matter of Angelica D. [Deborah D.], 157 AD3d 587, 588 [1st Dept 2018]). The mother failed to testify or present any evidence, and her various explanations for missing visitation were speculative and otherwise unsupported by the evidence (see Matter of E.M. [Josephine B.], 235 AD3d 593, 594 [1st Dept 2025]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: October 1, 2026