Opinion
702.
04-05-2016
In re LAWANNA M., etc., A Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., William W., Respondent–Appellant, The New York Foundling Hospital, Petitioner–Respondent.
Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York (Richard L. Herzfeld of counsel), for appellant. Daniel Gartenstein, Long Island City, for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Susan Clement of counsel), attorney for the child.
Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York (Richard L. Herzfeld of counsel), for appellant.
Daniel Gartenstein, Long Island City, for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Susan Clement of counsel), attorney for the child.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., ANDRIAS, SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, KAHN, JJ.
Opinion Order, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about September 10, 2014, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent permanently neglected his daughter, terminated his parental rights to the child and committed her care and custody to the New York City Children's Services and The New York Foundling Hospital for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence that the agency expended diligent efforts between May 2012 and February 14, 2014 to strengthen the parental relationship by referring respondent to anger management and parenting skills programs and by sending him over 25 letters and/or emails asking him to engage in such services, while providing him with the assigned caseworker's contact information (see Matter of Ebonee Annastasha F. [Crystal Arlene F.], 116 A.D.3d 576, 576–577, 985 N.Y.S.2d 4 [1st Dept.2004], lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 906, 2014 WL 2891997 [2014] ; Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a] ).
The record also demonstrates that after the Family Court directed respondent to take additional anger management and parenting skills classes because it had witnessed him acting out in court, he refused to engage in those services during the relevant statutory period, even though the child was refusing to visit him because of his angry demeanor. The fact that respondent denied needing services rendered the agency's diligent efforts unavailing (see Matter of Tiara J. [Anthony Lamont A.], 118 A.D.3d 545, 546, 988 N.Y.S.2d 56 [1st Dept.2014] ; Matter of Kimberly C., 37 A.D.3d 192, 829 N.Y.S.2d 84 [1st Dept.2007], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 813, 836 N.Y.S.2d 553, 868 N.E.2d 236 [2007] ).
In addition, clear and convincing evidence in the record demonstrates that respondent permanently neglected the child by failing to plan for her future, because during the relevant statutory period, he failed to take any steps toward correcting the conditions that prevented her from being placed in his care or to advance a realistic, feasible plan for her future care (see Matter of Jaileen X.M. [Annette M.], 111 A.D.3d 502, 503, 974 N.Y.S.2d 440 [1st Dept.2013], lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 859, 2014 WL 113785 [2014] ; Matter of Alpacheta C., 41 A.D.3d 285, 285, 839 N.Y.S.2d 43 [1st Dept.2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 812, 846 N.Y.S.2d 602, 877 N.E.2d 652 [2007] ). Although respondent claims that the agency should have forced the child to engage in family therapy with him, he never addressed the fact that the child's therapist believed that such therapy would be harmful to her (see Matter of Juanita H., 245 A.D.2d 89, 90, 665 N.Y.S.2d 650 [1st Dept.1997], lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 811, 671 N.Y.S.2d 714, 694 N.E.2d 883 [1998] ).
The Family Court properly declined to enter a suspended judgment because the child has lived in the foster home for most of her life, with her brother, who has already been adopted by the foster mother (see Matter of Maryline A., 22 A.D.3d 227, 228, 802 N.Y.S.2d 29 [1st Dept.2005] ). The now sixteen-year-old child has also indicated that she felt unsafe around respondent and wants to be adopted by the foster mother, who wants to adopt her (see Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 N.Y.2d 838, 841–842, 501 N.Y.S.2d 647, 492 N.E.2d 775 [1986] ).