In Re Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136 (1984)
To terminate parental rights based on permanent neglect, an agency must demonstrate diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship, and the parent must fail to maintain contact with or plan for the child’s future for at least one year after the child enters agency custody.
Summary
This case concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights due to permanent neglect of her child. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the agency demonstrated diligent efforts to assist the mother, and the mother failed to adequately plan for the child’s future. The court clarified that a temporary transfer of the child to the parent for a trial period does not automatically terminate the agency’s custody and that the one-year period of neglect need not be the year immediately preceding the commencement of the termination proceeding.
Facts
The respondent, who herself was a former foster child, gave birth to Star Leslie W. in 1979. After one week, she voluntarily placed the child in the care of her former foster parents, who were then given foster parent status. The child was then placed under the care of Leake & Watts Children’s Home. The mother had visitation rights but moved frequently and was often out of contact with the agency. In December 1981, the child lived with the mother for one month but then returned to foster care. In February 1982, the agency initiated proceedings to terminate the mother’s parental rights based on permanent neglect.
Procedural History
The Family Court granted the petition to terminate parental rights, finding that the mother failed to plan for the child’s future despite the agency’s diligent efforts. The Appellate Division affirmed, with two judges dissenting on the grounds that the agency did not make sufficient diligent efforts. The New York Court of Appeals then affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the agency exercised diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship as required by Social Services Law § 384-b.
2. Whether the child was in the care of an authorized agency at the time the termination proceeding was commenced, as required by Social Services Law § 384-b(7)(a).
3. Whether the one-year period of neglect must be the year immediately preceding the institution of the termination proceedings.
Holding
1. Yes, because the agency provided counseling, arranged visitation, and attempted to resolve the mother’s housing issues.
2. Yes, because the temporary transfer of the child to the mother for a trial period did not terminate the agency’s custody.
3. No, because the statute contemplates a continuous period of one year at any time after the child’s placement with the agency.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the agency made diligent efforts by providing counseling, making visitation arrangements, and assisting the mother with housing. The court noted that the agency is required to make only reasonable efforts, and the mother was uncooperative. The court also held that the temporary transfer of the child to the mother did not terminate the agency’s custody because it was a trial arrangement. The court stated that the statute mandates “diligent efforts, defining them as ‘reasonable attempts… to assist, develop and encourage a meaningful relationship between the parent and child’ (Social Services Law, § 384-b, subd 7, par [f]).” The court further clarified that the one-year period of neglect need not be the year immediately preceding the commencement of the termination proceeding; it can be any continuous one-year period after the child’s placement with the agency. The court stated that requiring the neglect to occur immediately before the proceeding would frustrate the purpose of the statute, as agencies may need time to consider termination or attempt further reunification efforts. Finally, the court emphasized that at the dispositional hearing, the sole concern is the best interests of the child.