This case involves the intersection of custody and kinship guardianship and neglect proceedings, where children have been removed from their home. The Court is familiar with the family, having presided over various family court petitions involving these children since 2015.On October 23, 2015, a neglect petition was filed by the Onondaga County Department of Children and Family Services (hereinafter the DCFS) alleging that R.C. (hereinafter the Mother) neglected her children F. (currently XX years old) and H. (currently XX years old) under docket number NN-XXXX-15. This initial neglect petition listed the Mother's name as R.C. Since that time, the Mother has also been known as "R. B.," which is reflected in later filings. The father of F. is Mr. W. N., while H's father is Mr. A. K. Paternity was established by virtue of Orders of Filiation issued under P-XXXX-12 for the child F. and P-XXXX-14 for the child H.

The children were temporarily removed from the Mother's care on June 21, 2016 due, in part, to the Mother's continuous non-compliance with court orders involving the children. The Mother's appeal of the temporary removal order was dismissed by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department as moot (Matter of Faith B., 158 AD3d 1282 [4th Dept 2018]). The children were adjudicated to be neglected by the Mother after a trial and the Court released the children to the custody of the Mother pursuant to an Order of Fact-Finding and Disposition issued on October 20, 2016.

On May 24, 2017, DCFS filed a petition to modify the dispositional order seeking the removal of the children from the Mother's care. The petition alleged, in part, that the Mother refused to allow the DCFS caseworker access to her home to assess the safety of the children. The Court then issued an access order pursuant to Family Court Act §1034 on July 18, 2017, which the Mother did not comply with. On July 25, 2017, the subject children were temporarily removed from the Mother's care pursuant to an order under docket number NN-XXXX-15/17A. On January 25, 2018, the modification petition was granted after a hearing. The children have never returned to the Mother's care since July 25, 2017.

Mr. W. N., F.'s father, resided in Oklahoma for much of the proceedings and expressed [*2]interest in having custody of his child once she was removed from the Mother's care. After approval of Mr. N. through the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children and his certification as a foster parent, the child F. was released to the care and custody of her father after a hearing on June 5, 2018. The child H., who is not Mr. N.'s biological child, was placed with him as a foster parent so the siblings could remain together. Both children have resided with Mr. N. in Oklahoma since June 5, 2018. The Mother appealed from the orders permitting the children to reside with Mr. N. in Oklahoma, which were affirmed by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department on January 31, 2020 (Matter of Faith B., 179 AD3d 1514 [4th Dept 2020]; Matter of Hope B., 179 AD3d 1514 [4th Dept 2020]).

The Court takes judicial notice of all of its prior orders in this matter (Matter of Amyn C., 144 AD3d 1690 [4th Dept 2016]; Matter of Gugino v Tsvasman, 118 AD3d 1341 [4th Dept 2014]). Specifically, the Court takes judicial notice of the temporary removal order dated June 21, 2016 (NN-XXXX-15), the Fact-finding and Disposition Order under NN-XXXX-15, the temporary removal order dated July 25, 2017 and the modification order dated January 25, 2018 (NN-XXXX-15/17A), and the two modification orders issued on June 5, 2018 that authorized placement of the children with Mr. N. (NN-XXXX-15/18J and NN-XXXX-15/18J). The Court additionally takes judicial notice of the permanency hearing reports submitted by the DCFS caseworker and sworn to on January 24, 2018, July 26, 2018, January 30, 2019, and August 28, 2019 and the permanency hearing orders dated March 5, 2018, August 29, 2018, March 12, 2019 and October 3, 2019. At the last permanency hearing held on October 3, 2019 for the child H., the Court approved the permanency plan goal of return to parent with a concurrent goal of referral for legal guardianship. The release of the child F. to the care and custody of her father Mr. N. was most recently extended until August 29, 2020 by Order dated August 19, 2019 (NN-XXXX-15/19K).

Mr. N. filed a petition on October 25, 2019 to modify the prior order of custody for his child F. He sought to modify an October 20, 2016 Modified Order of Custody that provided that the Mother shall continue to have sole legal and physical custody of the child F. and inter alia, granted parenting time to Mr. N. Mr. N. alleged that there had been a change in circumstances since the October 20, 2016 order, in that the Mother had been found to have neglected the child, there was an ongoing child protective proceeding and the child had been placed with Mr. N. by Family Court for over one year.

Mr. N. additionally filed a petition on September 9, 2019 seeking kinship guardianship of the child H. pursuant to Social Services Law §1089-a (G-XXXX-19). The Court received an affidavit of service indicating that the father of the child, Mr. A. K. was served with the guardianship petition on September 10, 2019 by service on a person of suitable age and discretion plus service by mail on September 13, 2019. Mr. K. has not appeared in this proceeding and the Court has found him in default.

A trial was conducted on both petitions simultaneously on February 7, 2020 and March 3, 2020, with the Mother having been represented by Stephen Lance Cimino, Esq. and Mr. N. having been represented by Karen Vedder, Esq. on the guardianship petition and by Robert Rhinehart, Esq. on the modification of custody petition. Mr. Cimino was the Mother's fifth assigned attorney since these proceedings began in 2015. Arlene Bradshaw, Esq., who has represented the children since 2015, appeared as the Attorney for the Children. Joseph Marzocchi, Esq. of the County Attorney's [*3]Office appeared on behalf of the DCFS. The Court recognizes and appreciates the outstanding efforts of all counsel in this case.

The Court heard from the following witnesses: Mr. N., DCFS caseworker J. Z., and the Mother Ms. B. The Court has had the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor and evaluate their credibility. Now, after due and careful deliberation and based upon its evaluation of the evidence in the record and the credibility of the witnesses, the Court makes the following determination.

Mr. N. testified in person on February 7, 2020, having traveled from Oklahoma to appear for the trial. Mr. N. testified that he moved to Oklahoma from Syracuse because he was able to earn more money there while remaining employed with the same company and he believed he could provide a better life for his daughter. He has been at his current residence in Oklahoma for the past three years. Mr. N. testified that he has been employed for eight years as a security guard, and works from 7:00 AM until 3:00 PM, Monday through Friday. According to Mr. N. he receives higher pay in Oklahoma ($15.00 per hour in Oklahoma versus $9.25 per hour in Syracuse), and that Oklahoma has lower housing costs than Syracuse. Mr. N. has before and after-school child care programs arranged for both children.

Mr. N.'s testimony initially focused on his daughter F. He testified that F. is currently in fourth grade. While the child previously had an IEP and received special education services, she is now in regular classes and no longer requires any special services. Mr. N. introduced Petitioner's Exhibit 1, a copy of F.'s report card from January, 2020. The child's grades ranged from 80 to 100 and she made Honor Roll on January 24, 2020. Mr. N. has ensured that F. receives regular medical care, including treatment for asthma and bi-weekly therapy appointments. According to Mr. N., F. plays basketball and enjoys parks, pizza, and drawing. Mr. N. has not received any child support from Ms. B., nor has he received any contribution toward the health insurance he provides for F. Mr. N. testified that he has not informed the Mother of the child's health care or therapy appointments, but also testified that she has never asked about F.'s medical care.

With respect to the child H., Mr. N. testified that she came to live with him in Oklahoma at the same time F. did, in June of 2018 as a foster care placement through the DCFS. According to Mr. N., the child's father Mr. K. agreed for him to care for the child. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Mr. K. has been repeatedly noticed of proceedings regarding his child and has acquiesced for the child to reside with Mr. N. In fact, Mr. K. appeared before this Court on January 25, 2018 in the context of the neglect proceeding and a custody petition that Mr. N. had filed for the child H. At that time, Mr. K. supported the DCFS' position and additionally supported the child going to Oklahoma with Mr. N.. He did not file an appeal from this Court's order placing H. with Mr. N. as a foster parent. In this particular guardianship proceeding, Mr. K. was served with a copy of the petition but did not appear before the Court and the Court has held him in default. Mr. N. testified that the child H. started calling him her father when she was around five-years old, but that he has also told her that she has a second father.

Mr. N. testified that H. and F. have a close relationship. He has taken H. to medical and dental appointments, including appointments for specialized dental work. H. is in first grade, has an IEP and is in special education classes. According to Mr. N., H. also attends therapy with her sister. Mr. N. testified that he provides food, clothes, shelter, medical care and mental health care [*4]for both girls. He treats H. like his own daughter and loves her. Mr. N. additionally testified that it would be detrimental to the children to be split up. The children are always together and it would be traumatic for them to be separated. The children are bonded to each other and to Mr. N.. In fact, he initially filed for custody of H. back in 2016, which was dismissed by this Court due to lack of standing. He filed additional custody petitions for H. in 2017 and 2019.

Mr. N. testified that the Mother has not visited with the children in Oklahoma since they came to live with him in June of 2018, despite the DCFS offering to make arrangements for her to do so. The children have not had any in-person contact with their mother from June of 2018 until a visit held on February 6, 2020, arranged through the DCFS because Mr. N. had traveled to Syracuse with the children for the trial. Mr. N. testified that the Mother has had telephone contact with the children, but that the frequency of the phone calls was sporadic. According to Mr. N., the Mother's telephonic contact with the children would increase as court dates approached. For example, the Mother did not call the children at all from Christmas of 2018 through Easter of 2019, but started calling daily in January of 2020. The calls then decreased again. Since the beginning of February of 2020, she has called every day.

Mr. N. supervises the telephone calls using a speaker phone and testified that he had concerns regarding some of the Mother's conversations with the children, including promising the children gifts, such as puppies, telling the children they will be "home soon" and telling the children she was "sorry this happened." According to Mr. N., the Mother then sent him two videos of puppies to his phone, which the children saw. With regards to F., Mr. N. testified that he was seeking sole legal and physical custody of the child, telephone calls as long as the conversations were appropriate and supervised visits in Oklahoma or visits in Central New York, as long as they were supervised. Mr. N. testified that he is not able to effectively communicate with the Mother, as she is constantly arguing with him. With regards to H., Mr. N. was seeking kinship guardianship of the child.

The Court notes that Mr. N.'s demeanor during his testimony was very calm. The Court finds Mr. N. to be an extremely credible and reliable witness. The Court further notes that the Mother repeatedly made spontaneous outbursts during the cross-examination of Mr. N. At one point, the Court Security Officer instructed the Mother to put her cell phone away. The Mother asked the Court Security Officer if he was threatening her and advised the Court that she was looking at her cell phone to tell time.

Ms. J.Z. testified in support of Mr. N.'s petitions on February 7, 2020. She has been employed as a DCFS caseworker and for the past four years as a Permanency worker. Ms. Z. has been involved with H. and F. since September of 2018. According to Ms. Z., the Mother has not engaged in any of the services required by her service plan and the relevant court orders. Specifically, she has not obtained a psychological evaluation, has not engaged in parenting classes and has not started individual or family counseling. Despite sending the Mother monthly correspondence regarding services, a total of seventeen letters, she has never received a response. Perhaps most importantly, Ms. Z. has never seen the inside of the Mother's home. Ms. Z. attempted to visit the home over twelve times, but the Mother was never present. During each attempted home visit, Ms. Z. left her business card. Ms. Z. testified that she knows that the Mother received her cards because she saw it in a video that the Mother posted on YouTube. Ms. B. has only returned two of Ms. Z's telephone calls, asking when the return of the children will take place.

Ms. Z. testified that the DCFS was willing to pay for airfare, transportation and hotel accommodations for the Mother to visit her children in Oklahoma, and specifically notified the [*5]Mother of this opportunity in each monthly letter. Ms. B. never responded. According to Ms. Z., the Mother had a visit with the children the prior day and was appropriate. She testified that there were no tears, hugs or kisses during the visit. The child H. watched a video on the Mother's tablet while F. and the Mother played a game.

Ms. Z. personally visited Mr. N.'s home in Oklahoma in November of 2019. She visited the home and school and spoke with the foster care worker in Oklahoma along with the children's therapist. According to Ms. Z., Mr. N. keeps the DCFS well-informed of the children's health and progress. His home was appropriate, with no safety concerns. Ms. Z. testified that the DCFS was in support of both petitions and was seeking a safe reunification for the children. The Court finds Ms. Z. to be an extremely credible and reliable witness.

The Mother testified on her own behalf on March 3, 2020. At the outset of the court appearance, the Mother asked for new counsel. Noting that the Court had assigned the Mother five different attorneys since the neglect proceedings started in 2015 and this was her second assigned attorney since the proceedings at issue began, the Court denied the request (See, Matter of Munoz v Edmonds-Munoz, 123 AD3d 1038 [2nd Dept 2014]). Additionally, the Mother did not identify any particular deficiencies in her counsel (See, People v Jones, 149 AD3d 1576 [4th Dept 2017]). Any substitution of counsel at this juncture, mid-trial, would only serve as a delaying tactic (See, Matter of Wiley v Musabyemariya, 118 AD3d 898 [2nd Dept 2014]). This case has already been delayed by the Mother's previous request for new counsel, which the Court granted. To assign the Mother a sixth attorney would seriously prejudice the children and their right to permanency.

Ms. Brooks testified that she lives in Syracuse and that her children, F. and H., left her care on July 25, 2017. She never lived with Mr. N., and according to the Mother, Mr. N. rarely visited F. The Mother claimed that her children were seized from her without a warrant. Her testimony was punctuated with placing blame on others; the DCFS, the S. C. School District, caseworkers, the E. Children's Center and this Court. The Mother made various claims in her testimony, stating that the Court was in default, that Mr. N. has injured the children and that she has been subjected to cruel and unusual treatment. She did not provide any evidence of these claims.

The general tenor of the Mother's testimony was that she opposed the kinship guardianship petition with regards to H. and wanted both children returned to her care. She testified that she underwent a psychological evaluation and that it "acquitted" her. The Mother additionally testified that everyone in the courtroom should receive a psychological evaluation. According to the Mother, she previously engaged in mental health treatment at L.R. and B. for over ten years and does not want to re-engage. The Mother testified that she will not go to Oklahoma to visit her children, because her children were taken from her and has not sent her children Christmas or birthday presents in Oklahoma. She testified that there was no need for parenting classes. The Mother was very calm during portions of her testimony and emphatic in her responses and at other times portions of her testimony were confusing, evasive and combative. The Mother remains fixated in her position that her children were illegally taken from her in 2017 and appeared unable to focus on the current circumstances of her children.

It is well settled that in order to modify a prior order of custody, a party must establish that there has been a change in circumstances since the prior order "which reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interests of the child" (Matter of Higgins v Higgins, 128 AD3d 1396 [4th Dept [*6]2015]). A long-term custodial arrangement by stipulation "should prevail unless it is demonstrated that the custodial parent is unfit or perhaps less fit" (Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209 [4th Dept 1992]). In this case, Mr. N. met his burden by establishing that a neglect petition had been filed against the Mother (See, Matter of Jeremy J.A. v Carley A., 48 AD3d 1035 [4th Dept 2008]).Indeed, an adjudication of neglect is sufficient for a change in circumstances to warrant a determination into the best interests of the child (Matter of Curry v Reese, 145 AD3d 1475 [4th Dept 2016]; Matter of Christy S. v Phonesavanh S., 108 AD3d 1207 [4th Dept 2013]).

The fact that the children have been removed from the Mother's care due to neglect and that she has not engaged in any of the services designed to reunify her with her children demonstrates a sufficient change in circumstances in this case. Additionally, the Court finds that the Mother's unwillingness to visit her children for over twenty months is a change in circumstances requiring a modification of the current custody order (See, e.g., Weisberger v Weisberger, 154 AD3d 41 [2nd Dept 2017]). Finally, the testimony at the hearing and the Mother's outbursts during the court proceedings demonstrate to this Court that the parents are not able to effectively communicate and that joint custody is not a suitable disposition in this matter (See, Braiman v Braiman, 44 NY2d 544 [1978]). Ultimately, the Court finds there is "a sufficient change in circumstances reflecting a real need for change in order to insure the continued best interests of the children" (Matter of Norwood v Capone, 15 AD3d 790 [3rd Dept 2005]).

The Court additionally finds that sole legal and physical custody of the child F. to Mr. N. is in the child's best interests. The Court has considered the following factors in making this determination: "(1) the continuity and stability of the existing custodial arrangement, including the relative fitness of the parents and the length of time the present custodial arrangement has been continued; (2) the relative quality of each parent's home environment; (3) each parent's ability to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development; (4) the parents' relative financial status and ability to provide for the child; (5) the child's wishes; and (6) the need of the child to live with siblings" (Matter of Krier v Krier, 178 AD3d 1372 [4th Dept 2019]). The Court has also considered the parents' ability to guide and nurture the child and foster a relationship with the other parent (Matter of Brockel v Martin, 153 AD3d 1654 [4th Dept 2017]).

With respect to the first factor, this case presents somewhat unique circumstances, as the prior custody order has been superseded by the neglect order that released the child F. to her father Mr. N. on June 5, 2018. Therefore, although the October 20, 2016 custody order provides for the Mother to have sole legal and physical custody of the child, F. has not resided in the Mother's care since July 25, 2017. The Court finds that continuing F. in Mr. N.'s care in Oklahoma is in the best interests of the child. This child's life has been characterized by upheaval and uncertainty, having been twice removed from her Mother's care after living in a neglectful environment with the Mother. F. has now been living with her father for over a year, where by all accounts she is thriving. The evidence at the hearing demonstrated that F. is doing well in school and no longer requires an IEP. The child's best interests require that she remain in this stable environment. The Court additionally finds that Mr. N. is a more fit parent, and that at this time, the Mother is unfit to care for the children. She has been adjudicated to have neglected the child F. and has not engaged in any services to work on reunification with her.

The Court next considered the relative quality of each parent's home environment. Ms. Zuckerman testified that she had visited Mr. N.'s home in Oklahoma and that it was appropriate and free of any safety concerns. The children appear to be happy and comfortable there. The Court is unable to compare the quality of the Mother's home environment, as the Mother has repeatedly [*7]refused access to her home, despite court orders that require her to allow announced and unannounced home visits from the DCFS caseworker. Ms. Z. testified that she has attempted to visit the Mother's home on twelve occasions and has been unable to do so. This Court previously signed an Access Order to allow DCFS and/or law enforcement entry into the Mother's home, which was also unsuccessful. Because the Mother has not permitted access to her home, the Court finds that Mr. N. is better able to provide a quality home environment for the child F.

Mr. N. is better equipped to provide for F.'s emotional and intellectual development. The Court notes that the initial neglect adjudication in this case was based in part upon educational neglect wherein the Mother did not ensure that the child F. regularly attend school, resulting in a negative impact on the child's academic performance. Since being in Mr. N.'s care, the child has flourished in school to the point where she no longer requires an IEP or receives any specialized services. Her report card indicates that she is doing well in all of her classes, with all of her grades over 80%. She received grades of 100% in Art, Rhythm/Movement and STEAM. Mr. N. appears to be quite capable of caring for his child's needs. F. is enrolled in therapy, which she attends bi-weekly. In contrast, the Court is concerned with the Mother's interactions with the children wherein she attempts to influence them by promising them puppies and other gifts and telling them that they would return to her care soon. The Court finds that this emotional manipulation of the children indicates that the Mother is less capable to provide for the children's emotional and intellectual development.

The next factor for the Court to consider is the parents' financial status and ability to provide care for the child. Mr. N. testified that he has been gainfully employed with the same security company for the past eight years. He moved from Syracuse to Oklahoma to obtain a better life for his child, where he is earning more money and the cost of housing is less. There seems to be no concerns about his ability to financially provide for the child. The Mother's financial status is unclear to the Court and therefore the Court cannot adequately determine her ability to care for F. Without sufficient evidence on this point from the Mother, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of Mr. N.

Finally, the Court has considered the child's wishes and the child's need to live with her sibling. The Attorney for the Child has consistently supported Mr. N.'s petition for sole legal and physical custody of F. Courts have repeatedly recognized the importance of keeping siblings together (Esbach v Esbach, 56 NY2d 157 [1982]; In Re Oscar S. v Joyesha J., 149 AD3d 439 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Cross v Caswell, 113 AD3d 1107 [4th Dept 2014]). In fact, "sibling relationships will not be disrupted where, as here, there is no overwhelming need to do so" (Salerno v Salerno, 273 AD2d 818 [4th Dept 2000]). The evidence in the record shows that F. and H. have a close bond and loving relationship (See, Matter of Nelson v Perea, 118 AD3d 1057 [3rd Dept 2014]). Mr. N. testified that the children are very close and that F. takes care of her sister. According to his testimony, which the Court credits, separating the siblings would be traumatic. The evidence further demonstrates that Mr. N. is more willing and better equipped to foster a relationship with the other parent. The Court therefore finds that it is in the child F.'s best interest to award Mr. N. sole legal and physical custody of the child (Matter of Hermann v Williams, 179 AD3d 1545 [4th Dept 2020]). While not determinative, the Court notes that this is consistent with the position of the Attorney for the Child (Matter of Hughes v Gallup-Hughes, 90 AD3d 1087 [3rd Dept 2011]).

Because of the Mother's sporadic contact with the child and history of unpredictable and inappropriate behavior, the Court finds that supervised parenting time for the Mother is necessary. In making its determination concerning parenting time and/or contact for the Mother, the Court [*8]notes that the Mother voluntarily chose not to visit her children in Oklahoma from June 5, 2018 until the present, despite offers from the DCFS to make travel and lodging arrangements for her to do so. She did not see her children until February 6, 2020, when the DCFS caseworker arranged a visit for her in Syracuse after Mr. N. appeared in person for the hearing in this matter. Given the Mother's unwillingness to engage in any services, allow access to her home, or visit her children, the Court is reluctant to order any specific parenting time that could potentially set the children up for disappointment. The Court notes Mr. N.'s testimony that the Mother's phone calls were inconsistent and tended to increase prior to court appearances. The Court further notes the Mother's testimony that she will not visit her children in Oklahoma, which the Court finds to be tragic for these two young children. Based upon these circumstances, the Court finds that supervised visits shall occur in Oklahoma as arranged between the parties. Visits may also occur in Central New York or another location as arranged between the parties so long as the Mother's contact with the child is supervised. The Mother may have supervised telephone calls with the child, but Mr. N. has the right to terminate any telephone calls if the content of the phone call is inappropriate.

The Court additionally finds that Mr. N. shall be granted guardianship of the child H. The evidence at the hearing demonstrates that extraordinary circumstances exist, in that both parents had a prolonged separation from the child and did not assume a parental role (In Re Jaylanisa M.A., 157 AD3d 497 [1st Dept 2018]). Mr. K. has not had any recent contact with the child and has essentially abandoned the child.

With respect to the Mother, the Court finds additional extraordinary circumstances in that the Mother has persistently neglected the child. Since the initial neglect adjudication on October 20, 2016, the Mother has not engaged in any services required in her service plan by court order, including parenting classes, individual and family counseling, and a psychological evaluation. The Mother has repeatedly defied this Court's order to allow announced and unannounced home visits. Since her children were removed from her care on July 25, 2017, the Mother has not cooperated with any DCFS caseworker to try and reunify with them.

After H. went to reside with Mr. N. on June 5, 2018, the Mother did not have any in-person contact with her until DCFS arranged a visit on February 6, 2020, despite repeated offers from DCFS to arrange for parenting time in Oklahoma. The Mother has not offered any explanation for her refusal to visit with her children. The Court finds that the Mother's neglect adjudication, persistent refusal to engage in any services or cooperate with the DCFS caseworker, her refusal to allow access to her home and repeated violations of this Court's orders to be sufficient for a showing of persistent neglect in this case. Ultimately, by the Mother's "inability or unwillingness to appreciate the reasons why her children have been previously removed from her care or address the issues that resulted in the removal [of the children] coupled with the fact that the mother is still only entitled to supervised visitation, the mother has demonstrated a continuing lack of parental responsibility and unfitness to care for her children" (Matter of Chastity CC v Frederick DD, 165 AD3d 1412 [3rd Dept 2018]). The Court accordingly finds that extraordinary circumstances have been established as to both of H.'s parents in this case.

The Court additionally finds that an award of guardianship to Mr. N. for the child H. is in the best interests of the child, for the same reasons that the Court found for the child F. Any visits with the Mother should be supervised (Matter of Reece R., 89 AD3d 855 [2nd Dept 2011]).

The Court makes the following specific findings pursuant to Family Court Act §1089-a(i): custody of the child F. to Mr. N. and guardianship of the child H. to Mr. N. is in the best interests of the children. Termination of the neglect orders will not jeopardize the safety of the children in [*9]this case, as the children have been living with Mr. N. in Oklahoma since June 5, 2018, Mr. N. has been approved through the Interstate Compact and appropriate protections have been included to safeguard the children. It appears that any continued Order of Supervision for Mother would be futile, because the Mother has repeatedly refused to follow its dictates and has not cooperated with the DCFS caseworker. The child F. has been released to the custody of her father; therefore, there is no permanency goal for that child.

With respect to the guardianship petition, the Court finds that the permanency goal for the child H. was reunification with the parent with a concurrent goal of placement with a fit and willing relative and that Mr. N. has entered into an agreement for kinship guardianship assistance payments with the DCFS. The Court has also considered Mr. N.'s relationship with the child H., and notes that he is the father of the child's sibling, and that the child has been residing with him since June 5, 2018. Finally, the Court finds that there are compelling reasons for determining that the return home of the child and the adoption of the child are not in the best interests of H. and therefore not appropriate permanency options. The compelling reason for not returning the child home is due to the Mother not engaging in or progressing in the services designed to encourage reunification with the child, along with the fact that she has not visited her children in Oklahoma despite offers from the DCFS to do so. Guardianship at this time is more appropriate in this case than adoption. The child knows that Mr. N. is not her father but guardianship will allow her to maintain the current relationship she has with him. A fact-finding hearing has occurred in this case, resulting in a neglect adjudication.

Granting custody of the child F. and guardianship of the child H. to Mr. N. will provide both children with a safe and permanent home. Ultimately, this is the Court's primary concern, having presided over cases involving these children for much of the last five years. These children's lives have been highlighted by chaos, uncertainty and inappropriate and often bizarre behavior on the part of their mother. They are now in a stable living environment, doing well in school, have proper medical and dental care and are engaged in therapy. As Ms. Z. advocated during her testimony, these children need permanency. They deserve a permanent home. The Court finds that custody and guardianship to Mr. N. will provide that permanency to the children.

The Court finds that DCFS and the Attorney for the Children shall be placed on notice of and be made parties to any subsequent proceedings involving custody or guardianship of the children. The previously scheduled permanency hearing for the child H. is vacated in light of the guardianship order that achieves permanency for her. Counsel for Mr. N. shall each submit their respective orders.