Opinion
05-04-2017
In re MATTHEW LOUIS S., A Dependent Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Raymond R., Respondent–Appellant, The Children's Village, Petitioner–Respondent, Gynger Ruth S., et al., Respondents.
Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York (Richard L. Herzfeld of counsel), for appellant. Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent. Karen D. Steinberg, New York, attorney for the child.
Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York (Richard L. Herzfeld of counsel), for appellant.
Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent.
Karen D. Steinberg, New York, attorney for the child.
Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper), Family Court, Bronx County (Linda Talley, J.), entered on or about January 8, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, after a hearing, terminated respondent father's parental rights to the subject child on the ground of permanent neglect, and committed custody and guardianship of the child jointly to The Children's Village and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence which demonstrates that the agency made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by, among other things, referring respondent father for parenting skills and anger management programs, random drug screens, mental health evaluation and services, as well as scheduling visitation with the child and making referrals for a visitation coach (see Matter of Ashley R. [Latarsha R.], 103 A.D.3d 573, 574, 962 N.Y.S.2d 71 [1st Dept.2013], lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 857, 2013 WL 2436351 [2013] ; see also Matter of Marissa Tiffany C–W. [Faith W.], 125 A.D.3d 512, 1 N.Y.S.3d 802 [1st Dept.2015] ; Matter of Alani G. [Angelica G.], 116 A.D.3d 629, 984 N.Y.S.2d 362 [1st Dept.2014], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 903, 2014 WL 4548448 [2014] ).
Notwithstanding the agency's diligent efforts, the father failed to comply with required services and permanently neglected the child (see Matter of Charles Michael J., 58 A.D.3d 401, 870 N.Y.S.2d 310 [1st Dept.2009] ).
Having previously participated in parenting skills and anger management programs, as well as engaging with visitation coaches, the father's behavior during visits only worsened, and his visitation never progressed beyond supervised visits at the agency (see Matter of Emanuel N.F., 22 A.D.3d 288, 289, 802 N.Y.S.2d 51 [1st Dept.2005] ; Matter of Jonathan Jose T., 44 A.D.3d 508, 509, 843 N.Y.S.2d 326 [1st Dept.2007] ).The record supports the determination that termination of the father's parental rights is in the best interests of the child, and a suspended judgment is unwarranted. There was no evidence that he had any feasible plan to care for the child (see Matter of Olushola W.A., 41 A.D.3d 179, 838 N.Y.S.2d 54 [1st Dept.2007] ; Matter of Mia Tracy–Nellie G., 299 A.D.2d 186, 750 N.Y.S.2d 15 [1st Dept.2002] ).
A suspended judgment would serve only to prolong the child's lack of permanence, and would not have been in the child's best interests (see Matter of Julianna Victoria S. [Benny William W.], 89 A.D.3d 490, 491, 934 N.Y.S.2d 91 [1st Dept.2011], lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 805, 2012 WL 400041 [2012] ). The child's interests would best be served by freeing him for adoption by his long-term, pre-adoptive, non-kinship foster mother, who has met all of his needs and wishes to adopt him, and with whom he is well-bonded. The foster mother has cared for him since August 2010, when he was approximately four months old, and has provided him with a stable and loving home, the only home he has ever known (see Matter of Cameron W. [Lakeisha E.W.], 139 A.D.3d 494, 494–495, 29 N.Y.S.3d 806 [1st Dept.2016] ; Matter of Autumn P. [Alisa R.], 129 A.D.3d 519, 11 N.Y.S.3d 149 [1st Dept.2015] ).
The father's argument that he was deprived of due process as a result of the court's temporary suspension of his visitation pending the resolution of the on-going termination of parental rights proceeding is unpreserved (see Matter of Ana M.G. [Rosealba H.], 74 A.D.3d 419, 902 N.Y.S.2d 68 [1st Dept.2010] ) and unavailing (see Matter of Carlos G. [Bernadette M.], 84 A.D.3d 629, 924 N.Y.S.2d 328 [1st Dept.2011] ).
We have considered the father's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
RICHTER, J.P., ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, FEINMAN, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.