Opinion
351 CAF 19-01596
05-07-2021
In the MATTER OF NATALEE F. Onondaga County Department of Children and Family Services, Petitioner-Respondent; v. Eric F., Respondent-Appellant.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (DANIELLE K. BLACKABY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. ROBERT A. DURR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JOSEPH M. MARZOCCHI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. MICHAEL R. O'NEILL, SYRACUSE, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (DANIELLE K. BLACKABY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
ROBERT A. DURR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JOSEPH M. MARZOCCHI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
MICHAEL R. O'NEILL, SYRACUSE, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, respondent appeals from an order that, inter alia, terminated his parental rights with respect to the subject child on the ground of permanent neglect and freed the child for adoption. Contrary to respondent's contention, petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that it made the requisite diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen respondent's relationship with the child during his period of incarceration (see Matter of Nykira H. [Chellsie B.-M.] , 181 A.D.3d 1163, 1163-1164, 121 N.Y.S.3d 453 [4th Dept. 2020] ; Matter of Jarrett P. [Jeremy P.] , 173 A.D.3d 1692, 1694, 105 N.Y.S.3d 230 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 902, 2019 WL 5445955 [2019] ; Matter of Callie H. [Taleena W.] , 170 A.D.3d 1612, 1613, 94 N.Y.S.3d 485 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 905, 2020 WL 3056254 [2020] ). Among other things, while respondent was incarcerated, petitioner attempted to facilitate communication between respondent and the child by providing respondent with avenues to communicate with the child without violating the order of protection that was in effect. Petitioner also sent respondent monthly letters to provide him with updates on the child, encouraged him to plan for the child's future by engaging in recommended treatment and services, notified him of service plan review meetings, and investigated the potential placement resources that respondent suggested for the child. Contrary to respondent's contention, the fact that the potential placement resources suggested by respondent failed to respond to communications from petitioner does not mean that petitioner failed to make the requisite diligent efforts (see generally Matter of Britiny U. [Tara S.] , 124 A.D.3d 964, 966, 1 N.Y.S.3d 477 [3d Dept. 2015] ).
Contrary to respondent's further contention, Family Court properly determined that he failed to plan for the future of the child (see Jarrett P. , 173 A.D.3d at 1695, 105 N.Y.S.3d 230 ; Callie H. , 170 A.D.3d at 1614, 94 N.Y.S.3d 485 ; see generally Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a] ). Although respondent completed a substance abuse program after the time period at issue in the petition and claimed to have completed anger management training, respondent failed to engage in the other recommended services, including additional sex offender treatment, mental health treatment and conflict resolution, and there is no evidence that he had a "realistic plan to provide an adequate and stable home for the child[ ]" ( Jarrett P. , 173 A.D.3d at 1695, 105 N.Y.S.3d 230 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Finally, respondent did not request a suspended judgment, and thus he failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court abused its discretion in failing to issue one (see Matter of Jamarion N. [Ernest N.] , 181 A.D.3d 1200, 1201-1202, 117 N.Y.S.3d 913 [4th Dept. 2020] ; Matter of Hayleigh C. [Ronald S.] , 172 A.D.3d 1921, 1922, 97 N.Y.S.3d 920 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 911, 2019 WL 4066710 [2019] ).