Opinion
March 3, 1986
Appeal from the Surrogate's Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.).
Orders affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We reject the contention of the appellant Leslie S., Jr., that his paternity was established by clear and convincing evidence. The record before us reveals that he underwent a human leucocyte antigen (HLA) blood tissue test and that the results of said test excluded paternity on three independent grounds. Our courts have repeatedly recognized the value of the HLA test as a highly accurate and scientifically accepted tool in resolving paternity disputes (see, Matter of Department of Social Servs. v. Thomas J.S., 100 A.D.2d 119, appeal dismissed 63 N.Y.2d 675; Matter of Otsego County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Raymond G., 103 A.D.2d 919, appeal dismissed 64 N.Y.2d 646; Matter of Alicia C. v. Evaristo G., 93 A.D.2d 820; Matter of Bowling v. Coney, 91 A.D.2d 1195; Family Ct Act § 532). Thus, the Surrogate acted properly in concluding that the appellant Leslie S., Jr., failed to prove paternity by clear and convincing evidence (see generally, Matter of Jane PP. v. Paul QQ., 65 N.Y.2d 994).
We likewise find unpersuasive the appellant Diane B.'s argument that the evidence adduced at the trial was insufficient to establish that she abandoned her child (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [b]; [5] [a]). The record discloses that she repeatedly failed to visit or communicate with the infant despite the respondent's strong encouragement to do so. Given this clear and convincing evidence, the Surrogate properly determined that her indifference evinced an intent to forego her parental rights and obligations (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [a]; Matter of Julius P., 63 N.Y.2d 477). Accordingly, we affirm the orders appealed from. Gibbons, J.P., Thompson, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.