Opinion
2017–09646 Docket Nos. B–14541–12, B–14543–12, B–14544–12
03-13-2019
In the MATTER OF DESTINEY D.M.L. (Anonymous). Sheltering Arms Children and Family Services, Respondent; v. Jose L. (Anonymous), Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Hennessey S.L. (Anonymous). Sheltering Arms Children and Family Services, Respondent; v. Jose L. (Anonymous), Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Unique M.G. (Anonymous). Sheltering Arms Children and Family Services, Respondent; v. Jose L. (Anonymous), Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3)
Carol L. Kahn, New York, NY, for appellant. Dawn M. Shammas, New York, NY, for respondent. Fredericka P. Bashir, Brooklyn, NY, attorney for the child Hennessey S. L.
Carol L. Kahn, New York, NY, for appellant.
Dawn M. Shammas, New York, NY, for respondent.
Fredericka P. Bashir, Brooklyn, NY, attorney for the child Hennessey S. L.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, BETSY BARROS, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision dated August 2, 2017, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition dated November 6, 2017 (see CPLR 5520[c] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition dated November 6, 2017, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Jose L. (hereinafter the father) and Jessica L. (hereinafter the mother) are the parents of the child Hennessey S.L. (hereinafter the child). The mother and father were married in 2006 and separated in 2009. In February 2011, the child was removed from the mother's care, and has remained in foster care since that time. In June 2012, Sheltering Arms Children and Family Services (hereinafter the agency) filed a petition against the father seeking to terminate his parental rights with respect to the child based on permanent neglect. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court determined that the father permanently neglected the child. Following a dispositional hearing, the court terminated the father's parental rights and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to the agency for the purpose of adoption. The father appeals.
We agree with the Family Court's finding that the father permanently neglected the child. The agency demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that, during the relevant period of time, despite its diligent efforts to strengthen and encourage the parent-child relationship, the father failed to plan for the return of the child by failing to comply with his service plan (see Matter of Yamira Empress S. [Yvonne M.S.] , 155 A.D.3d 961, 962, 65 N.Y.S.3d 235 ; Matter of Elias P. [Ferman P.] , 145 A.D.3d 1066, 1068, 44 N.Y.S.3d 516 ; Matter of Amanda P.S. [Frances C.] , 133 A.D.3d 861, 862, 21 N.Y.S.3d 280 ).
We also agree with the Family Court's determination that it was in the child's best interests to terminate the father's parental rights (see Family Ct. Act § 631 ; Matter of Stephon B.M. [Barry J.M.] , 149 A.D.3d 1080, 1080, 52 N.Y.S.3d 501 ; Matter of Hector V.P. [Mariana V.] , 146 A.D.3d 889, 890, 45 N.Y.S.3d 201 ).
The father's contention that a hearing is necessary to determine whether he should be granted a conditional surrender is without merit. Since his parental rights were terminated in an adversarial proceeding, and not as a result of a voluntary surrender, the Family Court has no authority to permit post-termination visitation between him and the child (see Matter of Hailey ZZ. [Ricky ZZ.] , 19 N.Y.3d 422, 437–438, 948 N.Y.S.2d 846, 972 N.E.2d 87 ; Matter of Joshua J.C. [Jose C.] , 145 A.D.3d 883, 885, 45 N.Y.S.3d 111 ; Matter of Melissa DD. , 45 A.D.3d 1219, 1222, 846 N.Y.S.2d 475 ; cf. Social Services Law § 383–c ).
CHAMBERS, J.P., ROMAN, BARROS and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.