Opinion
2013-04-3
In the Matter of DE'VON M.F.C. (Anonymous), also known as De'Von C. (Anonymous), also known as Devon C. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, et al., petitioners-respondents; v. Mustapha F. (Anonymous), et al., appellant, et al., respondent.
Linda C. Braunsberg, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant. Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York, N.Y. (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for petitioner-respondent Children's Aid Society.
Linda C. Braunsberg, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant. Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York, N.Y. (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for petitioner-respondent Children's Aid Society.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Amy Hausknecht of counsel), attorney for the child.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, Mustafa F. appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Richmond County (Wolff, J.), dated January 18, 2011, as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, determined that he was not a father whose consent to the adoption of the subject child was required pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111 and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to the Children's Aid Society and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court's determination that the appellant's consent to the adoption was not required was supported by clear and convincing evidence ( see Matter of Julian J.C. [Juan C.], 96 A.D.3d 937, 946 N.Y.S.2d 874;Matter of Jaden Dasani–Amru B. [Roy Alphonso B.], 74 A.D.3d 801, 901 N.Y.S.2d 525;Matter of Serenity Anya C., 60 A.D.3d 852, 874 N.Y.S.2d 389). The appellant failed to meet his burden of establishing that he maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child through the payment of support and either regular visitation or other communicationwith the child ( seeDomestic Relations Law § 111[1][d]; Matter of Janelle C. [Sean R.], 88 A.D.3d 787, 787, 930 N.Y.S.2d 905;Matter of Martin V.L. [Martin L.], 88 A.D.3d 714, 715, 930 N.Y.S.2d 470;Matter of Aaron P., 61 A.D.3d 448, 448, 877 N.Y.S.2d 30;Matter of Hassan Lawrence W., 42 A.D.3d 573, 573–574, 840 N.Y.S.2d 140). Moreover, his “incarceration did not absolve him of the responsibility to provide financial support for the child, according to his means, and to maintain regular contact with the child or the petitioner” (Matter of Jayquan J. [Clint J.], 77 A.D.3d 947, 948, 910 N.Y.S.2d 121;see Matter of Martin V.L. [Martin L.], 88 A.D.3d at 715, 930 N.Y.S.2d 470;Matter of Kevin A. Jr., 61 A.D.3d 859, 860, 878 N.Y.S.2d 387).
The appellant's remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.