Opinion
10-19-2017
IN RE ANIYAH G., Derik G., et al., Petitioners–Respondents, v. Anthony T., Respondent–Appellant, Nakel B., Respondent.
Bruce A. Young, New York, for appellant. Paul Hastings LLP, New York (Molly L. Leiwant of counsel), for respondents. George E. Reed, White Plains, Attorney for the Child.
Bruce A. Young, New York, for appellant.
Paul Hastings LLP, New York (Molly L. Leiwant of counsel), for respondents.
George E. Reed, White Plains, Attorney for the Child.
Clear and convincing evidence supports Family Court's determination that respondent failed to maintain substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child, and therefore was a notice only parent for the purposes of the child's adoption by petitioners ( Domestic Relations Law § 111(1)(d). Contrary to respondent's contention, there exists no basis to disturb the court's finding that respondent's unsubstantiated accounts of financial support were not credible, and, even by the respondent's own account, his contact with the child over the years was minimal (see Matter of Michael M. [ Michael M., Sr.], 103 A.D.3d 423, 423, 959 N.Y.S.2d 74 [1st Dept. 2013] ). As such, there was no need for the Family Court to further determine whether respondent forfeited his right to consent to the adoption under DRL § 111(2)(a) (see Matter of Andrew Peter H.T., 64 N.Y.2d 1090, 1091, 489 N.Y.S.2d 882, 479 N.E.2d 227 [1985] ).
The order appealed from did not dismiss respondent's petitions for an order providing for sibling visitation, so that issue is not before this Court on this appeal. We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
ACOSTA, P.J., FRIEDMAN, WEBBER, OING, and MOULTON, JJ., concur.