Opinion
07-07-2016
In re STAR NATAVIA B., A Dependent Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Douglas B., Respondent–Appellant, Cardinal McCloskey Community Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, New York (Mary C. Pennisi of counsel), for appellant. Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for respondent. Goetz L. Vilsaint, Bronx, attorney for the child.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, New York (Mary C. Pennisi of counsel), for appellant.
Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for respondent.
Goetz L. Vilsaint, Bronx, attorney for the child.
Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Erik S. Pitchal, J.), entered on or about February 26, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, found that respondent father's consent is not required for the adoption of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Family Court's determination is supported by clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to provide consistent financial support for the subject child and failed to visit or communicate with the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 111[1][d] ; Matter of Brianna L. [Brandon L.], 83 A.D.3d 501, 920 N.Y.S.2d 657 [1st Dept.2011] ; see also Matter of Lambrid Shepherd C. [Jeffrey S.], 73 A.D.3d 496, 496, 899 N.Y.S.2d 837 [1st Dept.2010] ). Respondent was not excused from paying child support simply because an agency caseworker allegedly told him not to do so (see Matter of Savannah Love Joy F. [Andrea D.], 110 A.D.3d 529, 530, 973 N.Y.S.2d 165 [1st Dept.2013] ). In any event, there is no indication that respondent sought to provide the child with consistent financial support (see Matter of Robert R., 30 A.D.3d 309, 820 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept.2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 718, 827 N.Y.S.2d 688, 860 N.E.2d 990 [2006] ; see also Matter of Dominique P., 24 A.D.3d 335, 336, 807 N.Y.S.2d 26 [1st Dept. 2005], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 712, 816 N.Y.S.2d 747, 849 N.E.2d 970 [2006] ).
Respondent's alleged provision of $1,500 worth of clothing for the child did not establish that he was a consistent or reliable source of support, and was insufficient to meet his burden of showing that he provided the child with financial assistance that was a fair and reasonable amount according to his means, as required by Domestic Relations Law § 111(1)(d)(i) (see Matter of Maxamillian, 6 A.D.3d 349, 351, 777 N.Y.S.2d 35 [1st Dept.2004] ).
We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., FRIEDMAN, ANDRIAS, WEBBER, GESMER, JJ., concur.