Opinion
2013-03-13
In the Matter of JEWELS E.R. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, etc., respondent. Julien R. (Anonymous), appellant.
Glen A. Suarez, P.C., Huntington, N.Y., for appellant. Dennis M. Brown, Acting County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), for respondent.
Glen A. Suarez, P.C., Huntington, N.Y., for appellant. Dennis M. Brown, Acting County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), for respondent.
Miriam Solon Weintraub, Greenlawn, N.Y., attorney for the child.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and SYLVIA HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated March 13, 2012, which, upon a decision of the same court also dated March 13, 2012, made after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, determined that he permanently neglected the subject child, terminated his parental rights, and transferred the custody and guardianship of the subject child to the Suffolk County Departmentof Social Services for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner agency established by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the relationship between the father and the subject child ( seeSocial Services Law § 384–b[7]; Matter of Ailayah Shawneque L., 40 A.D.3d 1097, 1097–1098, 838 N.Y.S.2d 102;Matter of Darlene L., 38 A.D.3d 552, 554–555, 831 N.Y.S.2d 500;Matter of Justina Rose D., 28 A.D.3d 659, 659–660, 813 N.Y.S.2d 229). These efforts included setting up meetings with the father to review the child's service plan, discussing the importance of compliance, providing referrals to the father for substance abuse counseling and parenting classes, discussing the importance of the father's obtaining suitable income and housing, and scheduling visitation between the father and the child ( see Matter of B. Mc. [Dawn Mc.], 99 A.D.3d 713, 714, 953 N.Y.S.2d 216;Matter of Hadiyyah J.M. [Fatima D.R.], 91 A.D.3d 874, 874–875, 938 N.Y.S.2d 565;Matter of Ailayah Shawneque L., 40 A.D.3d at 1097–1098, 838 N.Y.S.2d 102). Despite these efforts, the father failed to plan for the future of the child ( see Matter of Justin I.B. [Natalie B.], 99 A.D.3d 897, 897, 952 N.Y.S.2d 587;Matter of Jonathan B. [Linda S.], 84 A.D.3d 1078, 1079, 923 N.Y.S.2d 638;Matter of Malen Sansa V. [Nancy J.], 70 A.D.3d 707, 708, 894 N.Y.S.2d 98;Matter of Darlene L., 38 A.D.3d at 555, 831 N.Y.S.2d 500).
Further, the Family Court correctly determined that it would be in the child's best interests not to enter a suspended judgment, but instead to terminate the father's parental rights and free the child for adoption by her foster parents, with whom she had bonded and with whom she had lived for more than half of her life ( seeSocial Services Law § 384–b[7][a]; Matter of Walter D.H. [Zaire L.], 91 A.D.3d 950, 951, 938 N.Y.S.2d 567; Matter of Hadiyyah J.M. [Fatima D.R.], 91 A.D.3d at 875, 938 N.Y.S.2d 565;Matter of Sarah Jean R., 290 A.D.2d 511, 512, 736 N.Y.S.2d 410). Under the circumstances of this case, the father's belated attempts to comply with the agency's service plan were insufficient to warrant imposition of a suspended judgment ( seeFamily Ct. Act §§ 631[b], 633; Matter of Walter D.H. [Zaire L.], 91 A.D.3d at 951, 938 N.Y.S.2d 567;Matter of Angelica W. [Dorothy W.], 80 A.D.3d 772, 773, 915 N.Y.S.2d 609).