Opinion
2017–07016 Docket No. B-25592-15
11-28-2018
In the MATTER OF QUADIR C.B. (Anonymous). SCO Family of Services, Petitioner-Respondent; v. Emmanuel D. (Anonymous), Respondent-Appellant, et al., Respondent.
Rhonda R. Weir, Brooklyn, NY, for respondent-appellant. Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for petitioner—respondent.
Rhonda R. Weir, Brooklyn, NY, for respondent-appellant.
Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for petitioner—respondent.
Helene Chowes, New York, NY, attorney for the child.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Lillian Wan, J.), dated February 10, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the father permanently neglected the subject child, terminated his parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to the petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner filed a petition pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, seeking, among other things, to terminate the father's parental rights with respect to the subject child on the ground of permanent neglect. After fact-finding and dispositional hearings, the Family Court, inter alia, found that the father permanently neglected the child, terminated his parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and the petitioner for the purpose of adoption. The father appeals.
The petitioner met its initial burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that it exercised diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship between the father and the child by, among other things, developing an appropriate service plan and advising the father of the importance of complying with that plan, scheduling regular parental access between the father and the child, referring the father to a program which provided mental health and domestic violence services and monitoring his compliance with obtaining those services, and visiting the father's home and advising him about obtaining alternative suitable housing (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a] ; Matter of Hailey ZZ. [Ricky ZZ.], 19 N.Y.3d 422, 430, 948 N.Y.S.2d 846, 972 N.E.2d 87 ; Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 385, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139 ; Matter of Sarah J.A. [Ramadan G.O.-A.], 156 A.D.3d 691, 692, 66 N.Y.S.3d 668 ; Matter of Daniel K.L. [Shaquanna L.], 138 A.D.3d 743, 744, 29 N.Y.S.3d 436 ; Matter of Danielle Joy K., 60 A.D.3d 948, 949, 875 N.Y.S.2d 257 ). Despite the petitioner's diligent efforts, the father failed to plan for the return of the child. The father failed to successfully complete any aspect of his service plan and did not consistently attend scheduled parental access (see Matter of Sarah J.A. [Ramadan G.O.-A.], 156 A.D.3d at 693, 66 N.Y.S.3d 668 ; Matter of Syasiah A.-M.L. [Valisha A.N.], 154 A.D.3d 755, 756, 61 N.Y.S.3d 675 ; Matter of Shaquan D.M. [Shaquanna M.], 150 A.D.3d 1119, 1120, 52 N.Y.S.3d 660 ). Accordingly, we agree with the Family Court's determination that the father permanently neglected the child (see Social Services Law § 384–b[3][g][i] ; [7][a], [c], [f] ).
Moreover, we agree with the Family Court's determination that the child's best interests would be served by terminating the father's parental rights and freeing the child for adoption (see Family Ct. Act § 631 ; Matter of Anthony D. [Yonas S.], 159 A.D.3d 818, 819, 69 N.Y.S.3d 833 ; Matter of Sarah J.A. [Ramadan G.O.-A.], 156 A.D.3d at 693, 66 N.Y.S.3d 668 ; Matter of Shaquan D.M. [Shaquanna M.], 150 A.D.3d at 1120, 52 N.Y.S.3d 660 ), rather than entering a suspended judgment. The evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing established that termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Anastasia R. [Jessica R.], 133 A.D.3d 605, 18 N.Y.S.3d 552 ). A suspended judgment was not appropriate given the father's failure to address the issues preventing the child's return to his care (see Matter of Dupree J.P. [Richard P.], 128 A.D.3d 967, 968, 9 N.Y.S.3d 389 ; Matter of Aaliyah L.C. [Jamie A.], 128 A.D.3d 955, 956, 11 N.Y.S.3d 178 ; Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 A.D.3d 1087, 1088–1089, 923 N.Y.S.2d 653 ; Matter of Amber D.C. [Angelica C.], 79 A.D.3d 865, 866, 912 N.Y.S.2d 431 ).
MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, DUFFY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.