Opinion
CAF 02-00280
October 1, 2002.
Appeals from an order of Family Court, Chautauqua County (Claire, J.), entered December 17, 2001, which adjudged that Raychael L.W. is a permanently neglected child, transferred the guardianship and custody of the child to petitioner and authorized petitioner to consent to the adoption of the child.
JUDY L. JOHNSON, LOCKPORT, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT ANN W.
BONNIE BURGIO, WATERTOWN, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT WESLEY W.
THOMAS A. DOREY, MAYVILLE, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
DENNIS W. JONES, LAW GUARDIAN, FINDLEY LAKE, FOR RAYCHAEL L.W.
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, HAYES, KEHOE, AND GORSKI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
Respondents appeal from an order terminating their parental rights with respect to their daughter Raychael L.W. on the ground of permanent neglect, transferring the guardianship and custody of the child to petitioner, and freeing her for adoption. Contrary to the contention of respondent Ann W., the record establishes by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship ( see Social Services Law § 384-b [a]; Matter of Hannah D., 292 A.D.2d 867; Matter of Christina W., 273 A.D.2d 918). Further, contrary to the contention of respondent Wesley W., the record establishes by clear and convincing evidence that, for a period of more than one year following the date the child came into petitioner's care, respondents failed substantially and continuously or repeatedly to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child although physically and financially able to do so ( see Matter of Ashley M. [appeal No. 1], 278 A.D.2d 892, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 710; Christina W., 273 A.D.2d 918). In addition, we conclude that Wesley W. has failed to preserve for our review his contention that Family Court erred in receiving in evidence the entire case file of petitioner on the ground that it contained inadmissible hearsay ( see Matter of Shane MM. v. Family Children Servs., 280 A.D.2d 699, 701; Matter of Juanita Katerina M., 205 A.D.2d 474; see also Matter of Kevin PP., 154 A.D.2d 739, 741; see generally Matter of Leon RR, 48 N.Y.2d 117, 122-123). In any event, we conclude that fundamental fairness is not violated by the admission in evidence of an entire case file where the opposing attorney has had the opportunity to review the case file before its admission in evidence ( see Matter of R. Children, 264 A.D.2d 423, 424; Matter of Rosemary D., 78 A.D.2d 889, lv denied 52 N.Y.2d 703; Matter of Melanie Ruth JJ., 76 A.D.2d 1008, 1009, lv denied 51 N.Y.2d 710).