Opinion
2011-10-11
In the Matter of JANELLE C. (Anonymous).Suffolk County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent;Sean R. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent.
Marina M. Martielli, East Quogue, N.Y., for appellant.Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.Diane B. Groom, Central Islip, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), entered July 26, 2010, as, after a hearing, determined that he is not a person whose consent to adoption is required pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court's determination that the father's consent to the adoption of the subject child was not required was supported by clear and convincing evidence ( see Matter of Sharissa G., 51 A.D.3d 1019, 859 N.Y.S.2d 246). In this respect, the evidence demonstrated that the father never paid support, visited the child only once during the period when he knew of her whereabouts, and failed to take basic steps to locate her after losing track of her whereabouts. In addition, once he learned that the child was in the custody of the Department of Social Services, he left only one voicemail message with a caseworker during a period of approximately seven months. Accordingly, the father 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 communication with the child ( see Domestic Relations Law § 111[1][d]; Matter of Jaden Dasani–Amru B. [ Roy Alphonso B.], 74 A.D.3d 801, 802, 901 N.Y.S.2d 525; Matter of Jason Brian S., 303 A.D.2d 759, 758 N.Y.S.2d 96; Matter of Kianna C., 292 A.D.2d 380, 738 N.Y.S.2d 98).
The father was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel ( see Matter of Amber Megan D., 54 A.D.3d 338, 862 N.Y.S.2d 568; Matter of Laura F., 48 A.D.3d 812, 852 N.Y.S.2d 388; see generally Matter of Shaheen P.J., 29 A.D.3d 996, 998, 817 N.Y.S.2d 304).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.
SKELOS, J.P., BALKIN, LEVENTHAL and HALL, JJ., concur.