Opinion
10686
01-02-2020
IN RE MICHAEL A.M., etc., a Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Michael M., Respondent–Appellant, v. MercyFirst, Petitioner–Respondent, Administration for Children's Services, Respondent.
John R. Eyerman, New York, for appellant. Warren & Warren PC, Brooklyn, (Ira L. Eras of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Susan Clement of counsel), attorney for the child.
John R. Eyerman, New York, for appellant.
Warren & Warren PC, Brooklyn, (Ira L. Eras of counsel), for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Susan Clement of counsel), attorney for the child.
Richter, J.P., Gische, Mazzarelli, Gesmer, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about May 3, 2018, which, after a hearing, determined that respondent father's consent was not required for his child's adoption and, in the alternative, that he permanently neglected the child, and terminated his parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship jointly to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Family Court's finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence that, despite the agency's diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, the father failed to plan for the child's future (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a] ). Throughout the relevant time period, respondent refused to provide the agency with his contact information (see Matter of Harold Ali D.-E.[Rubin Louis E.], 94 A.D.3d 449, 450, 942 N.Y.S.2d 50 [1st Dept. 2012] ), and failed to visit the child consistently, attending few of the permitted scheduled visits (see Matter of Angelica S.[Cynthia C.], 144 A.D.3d 484, 485, 41 N.Y.S.3d 31 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1128, 45 N.Y.S.3d 368, 68 N.E.3d 97 [2017] ).
A preponderance of the evidence supports the determination that termination of respondent's parental rights is in the best interests of the child in order to permit adoption by the child's long-term foster mother ( Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147–148, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 [1984] ; see Matter of Cameron W.[Lakeisha E.W.], 139 A.D.3d 494, 494–495, 29 N.Y.S.3d 806 [1st Dept. 2016] ; Matter of Autumn P.[Alisa R.], 129 A.D.3d 519, 11 N.Y.S.3d 149 [1st Dept. 2015] ).
Under the circumstance, here we need not address family court's initial determination that the father was a notice only father. We perceive no error in the court's ruling on alternative grounds.