Opinion
No. CAF 06-03751.
December 21, 2007.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Martha Walsh Hood, J.), entered December 13, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, insofar as appealed from, terminated the parental rights of respondent Charles B., III based on a finding of permanent neglect and freed the subject children for adoption.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (MARY P. DAVISON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
ANTHONY P. RIVIZZIGNO, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (SARA J. LANGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
Present: Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Lunn and Peradotto, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order terminating his parental rights based on a finding of permanent neglect and freeing the subject children for adoption. We reject the father's contention that petitioner failed to establish permanent neglect by the requisite clear and convincing evidence ( see generally Social Services Law § 384-b [g]; Matter of Star Leslie W, 63 NY2d 136, 142-143). The record establishes that the father chose to have no contact with his children for a period of almost five months and that his visitation was sporadic for a period of over seven months, for periods of time both before and after THE five-month period. We thus conclude that petitioner established that, for a period of more than one year, the father failed "substantially and continuously or repeatedly to maintain contact with or plan for the future of his children (Social Services Law § 384-b [a]; see Matter of Raychael L.W., 298 AD2d 930, lv denied 99 NY2d 504; Matter of Latasha W, 268 AD2d 340, 341). We further reject the contention of the father that Family Court abused its discretion in terminating his parental rights. The record "established] that the child [ren]'s best interests dictated [that they] be freed for adoption by [their] foster parent of four years" ( Matter of Aliya Cheray Love L., 39 AD3d 364, 365). Finally, the father did not request a suspended judgment and thus failed to preserve for our review his alternative contention that the court should have entered a suspended judgment ( see Matter of Rosalinda R., 16 AD3d 1063, 1064, lv denied 5 NY3d 702).