Opinion
2012-08-8
In the Matter of MICHAEL A.B. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, et al., respondents; Richard A.B. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Richard J.B. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, et al., respondents; Richard A.B. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)
Peter Dailey, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Warren & Warren, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Ira L. Eras of counsel), for respondent MercyFirst.
Peter Dailey, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Warren & Warren, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Ira L. Eras of counsel), for respondent MercyFirst.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney for the children.
In two related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of two orders of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Turbow, J.) (one as to each child), both dated August 23, 2011, as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that he permanently neglected the subject children, terminated his parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children to MercyFirst and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the orders of disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court's determination that the consent of the father to the adoption of the subject children was not required is supported by the record before it. The father, an out-of-wedlock father whose children had been placed with adoptive parents more than six months after their birth, failed to meet his burden of establishing that he maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the children through the payment of support and either regular visitation or other communication with them ( see Domestic Relations Law § 111[1][d]; Matter of Robert O. v. Russell K., 80 N.Y.2d 254, 264, 590 N.Y.S.2d 37, 604 N.E.2d 99;Matter of Andrew Peter H.T., 64 N.Y.2d 1090, 1091, 489 N.Y.S.2d 882, 479 N.E.2d 227;Matter of Charle Chiedu E. [ Chiedu E.], 87 A.D.3d 1140, 1141, 930 N.Y.S.2d 456;Matter of Marc Jaleel G. [ Marc E.G.], 74 A.D.3d 689, 690, 905 N.Y.S.2d 160).
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court properly found that he permanently neglected the subject children. The petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to assist the father in maintaining contact with the children and planning for the children's future ( see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 142, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824;Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 373, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139;Matter of Anthony R. [ Juliann A.], 90 A.D.3d 1055, 1056, 937 N.Y.S.2d 72;Matter of Teshana Tracey T. [ Janet T.], 71 A.D.3d 1032, 896 N.Y.S.2d 470). These efforts included facilitating visitation, repeatedly providing the father with referrals for services and counseling, and repeatedly advising the father that he must enroll in and complete drug treatment ( see Matter of Teshana Tracey T. [Janet T.], 71 A.D.3d at 1033, 896 N.Y.S.2d 470;Matter of Jada Ta–Toneyia L., 66 A.D.3d 901, 902, 886 N.Y.S.2d 640;Matter of Aliyanna M., 58 A.D.3d 853, 854, 873 N.Y.S.2d 124). Despite these efforts, the father failed to plan for the children's future ( see Matter of Teshana Tracey T. [ Janet T.], 71 A.D.3d at 1033, 896 N.Y.S.2d 470;Matter of Sorin P., 58 A.D.3d 743, 744, 873 N.Y.S.2d 89;Matter of Amy B., 37 A.D.3d 600, 601, 830 N.Y.S.2d 294).
Furthermore, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate the father's parental rights ( see Matter of Anthony R. [ Juliann A.], 90 A.D.3d at 1056, 937 N.Y.S.2d 72;Matter of Zechariah J. [ Valrick J.], 84 A.D.3d 1087, 1088, 923 N.Y.S.2d 653;Matter of Teshana Tracey T. [ Janet T.], 71 A.D.3d at 1034, 896 N.Y.S.2d 470;Matter of “Baby Boy” E., 42 A.D.3d 536, 536–537, 840 N.Y.S.2d 130;Matter of Desire Star H., 202 A.D.2d 582, 584, 609 N.Y.S.2d 268). Termination of parental rights will free the children for adoption, providing them with the opportunity to have a permanent family ( see Matter of Michael B., 80 N.Y.2d 299, 590 N.Y.S.2d 60, 604 N.E.2d 122;Matter of Zechariah J. [ Valrick J.], 84 A.D.3d at 1088, 923 N.Y.S.2d 653).
The father's remaining contention is not properly before this Court ( see CPLR 5515; Ostrowska v. Ostrowski, 59 A.D.3d 507, 873 N.Y.S.2d 663;Cardinal Holdings v. Chandre Corp., 302 A.D.2d 550, 551, 755 N.Y.S.2d 298;Matter of Kirdahy v. Scalia, 301 A.D.2d 525, 527, 753 N.Y.S.2d 524).