Opinion
2013-05-7
In re GAVIN MARTIN W., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Gary W., Respondent–Appellant, Catholic Guardian Society and Home Bureau, Petitioner–Respondent.
Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Syosset (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for appellant. Magovern & Sclafani, New York (Joanna M. Roberson of counsel), for respondent.
Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Syosset (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for appellant. Magovern & Sclafani, New York (Joanna M. Roberson of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney for the child.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., ACOSTA, MOSKOWITZ, MANZANET–DANIELS, CLARK, JJ.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan Knipps, J.), entered on or about March 16, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, determined that respondent father's consent was not required for the subject child's adoption, and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Clear and convincing evidence supports the finding that the father did not meet the parental responsibility criteria set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 111(1)(d) ( see Matter of Lambrid Shepherd C. [Jeffrey S.], 73 A.D.3d 496, 496, 899 N.Y.S.2d 837 [1st Dept. 2010] ).
The Family Court's determination that the child's best interests would be served by freeing him for adoption is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147–148, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 [1984] ). The record shows that the father is currently incarcerated and will not be eligible for parole until 2015. Further, the child's foster parents wish to adopt him and have provided a loving and stable home since he was placed in their care in September 2009 ( see Matter of Shatavia Jeffeysha J. [Jeffrey J.], 100 A.D.3d 501, 501–502, 954 N.Y.S.2d 60 [1st Dept. 2012] ). A suspended judgment is not warranted, because the father has not adequately planned for the child's future. Moreover, the persons proposed by the father as alternative resources are virtual strangers to the child and have not shown that they are ready, willing and able to provide the child with a stable and loving home ( see Matter of Jenee Chantel R., 295 A.D.2d 291, 291–292, 743 N.Y.S.2d 874 [1st Dept. 2002] ).