From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Gabriella Kamina M.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 10, 2017
146 A.D.3d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

01-10-2017

In re Gabriella KAMINA M., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Naquwan T., Respondent–Appellant, Edwin Gould Services for Children and Families, Petitioner–Respondent.

Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for appellant. John R. Eyerman, New York, for respondent. Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, attorney for the child.


Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for appellant.

John R. Eyerman, New York, for respondent.

Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, attorney for the child.

ANDRIAS, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, KAPNICK, WEBBER, KAHN, JJ.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Linda Tally, J.), entered on or about August 20, 2015, which, inter alia, determined that respondent father's consent to the subject child's adoption was not required, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner agency proved by clear and convincing evidence that the father only had minimal and sporadic contact with the child and the agency, and that the father did not provide the child with any financial support (see Matter of S'Mya Jade R. [Paul Gregory R.], 135 A.D.3d 488, 22 N.Y.S.3d 826 [1st Dept.2016] ). The father did not contact the agency to set up visits with the child while he was incarcerated, and did not begin visiting with the child until well after the filing of the agency's petition, when the child was about two years old. The father's incarceration does not absolve him of the obligation of maintaining regular contact with the child and providing financial support for her, according to his means (see Matter of Jonathan M.H. [Reginald H.], 135 A.D.3d 493, 22 N.Y.S.3d 830 [1st Dept.2016], lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 904, 2016 WL 1691978 [2016] ). Furthermore, the father was not listed on the child's birth certificate or in the putative father registry, and he did not file his paternity petition until after the agency filed its petition, when the child was over a year old (see Matter of Nevaeh R. [Veronica B.-Ruben M.], 139 A.D.3d 602, 32 N.Y.S.3d 154 [1st Dept.2016] ).

We have considered the father's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

In re Gabriella Kamina M.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 10, 2017
146 A.D.3d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

In re Gabriella Kamina M.

Case Details

Full title:In re Gabriella KAMINA M., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Jan 10, 2017

Citations

146 A.D.3d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
45 N.Y.S.3d 44
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 133