Opinion
2013-11540, 2014-01165, Docket Nos. B-677-13, B-679-13.
01-28-2015
In the Matter of HASON–JA M. (Anonymous). Rockland County Department of Social Services, respondent; Kiladi M. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Hanja M. (Anonymous). Rockland County Department of Social Services, respondent; Kiladi M. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2).
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas E. Humbach, Pomona, N.Y. (Barbara M. Wilmit of counsel), for respondent. Veronica J. Young, New City, N.Y., attorney for the children.
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Thomas E. Humbach, Pomona, N.Y. (Barbara M. Wilmit of counsel), for respondent.Veronica J. Young, New City, N.Y., attorney for the children.
Opinion Appeal from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Rockland County (William P. Warren, J.), dated September 18, 2013, and (2) an order of disposition of that court dated November 14, 2013. The order of fact-finding, after a hearing, found that the father permanently neglected the subject children. The order of disposition, after a hearing, terminated the father's parental rights and transferred the guardianship and custody of the subject children to the Commissioner of Social Services of Rockland County for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the order of fact- finding was superseded by the order of disposition, and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
To establish permanent neglect, there must be clear and convincing proof that, for a period of one year following the child's placement with an authorized agency, the parent failed to substantially and continuously or repeatedly maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child, although physically and financially able to do so, notwithstanding the agency's diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7] ; Matter of Egypt A.A.G. [Kimble G.], 108 A.D.3d 533, 533–534, 969 N.Y.S.2d 111 ; Matter of Luis A.M.C. [Wendy M.], 102 A.D.3d 780, 781, 957 N.Y.S.2d 880 ; Matter of Walter D.H. [Zaire L.], 91 A.D.3d 950, 951, 938 N.Y.S.2d 567 ). “ ‘At a minimum, planning for the future of the child requires the parent to take steps to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal from the home’ ” (Matter of Carmine A.B. [Nicole B.], 101 A.D.3d 711, 712, 955 N.Y.S.2d 190, quoting Matter of David O.C., 57 A.D.3d 775, 775–776, 870 N.Y.S.2d 389 ; Matter of Jonathan B. [Linda S.], 84 A.D.3d 1078, 1079, 923 N.Y.S.2d 638 ).
Here, the Family Court properly found that the father permanently neglected the subject children. The petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to assist the father in planning for the children's future by, among other things, referring him to a sex offender treatment program and repeatedly advising him that he had to attend and complete the program (see Matter of Carmine A.B. [Nicole B.], 101 A.D.3d at 712–713, 955 N.Y.S.2d 190 ; Matter of Temple S.M. [Tricia M.], 97 A.D.3d 681, 681–682, 947 N.Y.S.2d 611 ; Matter of Teshana Tracey T. [Janet T.], 71 A.D.3d 1032, 1033, 896 N.Y.S.2d 470 ). In failing to complete the sex offender treatment program and refusing to acknowledge his guilt, the father was unable to gain insight into his previous abusive behavior (see Matter of Ajuwon H., 18 A.D.3d 752, 753, 796 N.Y.S.2d 108 ; Matter of Perry T.K., 16 A.D.3d 687, 688, 793 N.Y.S.2d 71 ; Matter of Tammy J., 185 A.D.2d 881, 883, 587 N.Y.S.2d 377 ; see also Matter of Emerald L.C. [David C.], 101 A.D.3d 1679, 1680, 958 N.Y.S.2d 242 ). Accordingly, the Family Court properly found that the father failed to adequately plan for the children's future (see Matter of Ajuwon H., 18 A.D.3d at 753, 796 N.Y.S.2d 108 ; Matter of Perry T.K., 16 A.D.3d at 688, 793 N.Y.S.2d 71 ; Matter of Tammy B., 185 A.D.2d at 883, 587 N.Y.S.2d 377 ; see also Matter of Emily Jane Star R. [Evelyn R.], 117 A.D.3d 646, 647, 987 N.Y.S.2d 319 ; Matter of James X., 37 A.D.3d 1003, 1006–1007, 830 N.Y.S.2d 608 ).
Moreover, the Family Court properly determined that termination of the father's parental rights, rather than the entry of a suspended judgment, was in the children's best interests (see Family Ct. Act § 631 ; Matter of Amonte M. [Mary M.], 112 A.D.3d 937, 938–939, 977 N.Y.S.2d 90 ; Matter of Precious D.A. [Tasha A.], 110 A.D.3d 789, 790, 973 N.Y.S.2d 660 ).
DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, COHEN and BARROS, JJ., concur.