Opinion
02-25-2015
In the Matter of KAYLA S.-G. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent, David G. (Anonymous), appellant.
Glenn Gucciardo, Northport, N.Y., for appellant. Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Christina E. Farrell of counsel), for respondent. Susan Selanikio Linder, West Islip, N.Y., attorney for the child.
Glenn Gucciardo, Northport, N.Y., for appellant.
Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Christina E. Farrell of counsel), for respondent.
Susan Selanikio Linder, West Islip, N.Y., attorney for the child.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SHERI S. ROMAN, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Opinion Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (David Freundlich, J.), dated October 31, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the father permanently neglected the subject child, terminated his parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to the Suffolk County Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Suffolk County Department of Social Services commenced this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b. After fact-finding and dispositional hearings, the Family Court determined that the father had permanently neglected the subject child, terminated his parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to the Suffolk County Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption. The father appeals.
The Family Court correctly determined that the petitioner demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that it had “exercised diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship” (Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 142, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 ; see Matter of Hailey ZZ. [Ricky ZZ.], 19 N.Y.3d 422, 429, 948 N.Y.S.2d 846, 972 N.E.2d 87 ; Matter of Michael B., 80 N.Y.2d 299, 309, 590 N.Y.S.2d 60, 604 N.E.2d 122 ) and that the father's partial and belated compliance with the service plan provided by the agency was insufficient to preclude a finding of permanent neglect (see Matter of Tarmara F.J. [Jaineen J.], 108 A.D.3d 543, 544, 969 N.Y.S.2d 119 ; Matter of Jewels E.R. [Julien R.], 104 A.D.3d 773, 774, 961 N.Y.S.2d 248 ; Matter of Hadiyyah J.M. [Fatima D.R.], 91 A.D.3d 874, 875, 938 N.Y.S.2d 565 ; Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 A.D.3d 1087, 1087–1088, 923 N.Y.S.2d 653 ). In any event, the record did not establish that the father had taken steps to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the child from his home (see Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 N.Y.2d 838, 840, 501 N.Y.S.2d 647, 492 N.E.2d 775 ; Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 A.D.3d at 1087–1088, 923 N.Y.S.2d 653 ; Matter of Jonathan B. [Linda S.], 84 A.D.3d 1078, 1079, 923 N.Y.S.2d 638 ; Matter of Jennifer R., 29 A.D.3d 1005, 1006, 817 N.Y.S.2d 309 ).
Likewise, the Family Court's determination that it was in the child's best interests to terminate the father's parental rights and free the child for adoption by her foster parents is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Hailey ZZ. [Ricky ZZ.], 19 N.Y.3d at 430, 948 N.Y.S.2d 846, 972 N.E.2d 87 ; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d at 147–148, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 ; Matter of Adams v. Administration for Children's Services–Queens, 122 A.D.3d 840, 996 N.Y.S.2d 702 ; Matter of Jordan E.G.L. [Christina D.L.], 108 A.D.3d 546, 547, 967 N.Y.S.2d 840 ). Contrary to the father's contention, a suspended judgment was not warranted, despite the father's recent progress and efforts to avail himself of the services offered to him, because the child has bonded with the foster parents, who have consistently provided for her special needs (see Matter of Jesse D. [John J.D.], 109 A.D.3d 990, 991, 972 N.Y.S.2d 92 ; Matter of Jalil U. [Rachel L.-U.], 103 A.D.3d 658, 659, 958 N.Y.S.2d 791 ; see also Matter of Mahaadai D.H. [Rhonda L.H.], 110 A.D.3d 878, 879, 973 N.Y.S.2d 709 ).
The father's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see Fresh Pond Road Assoc. v. Estate of Schacht, 120 A.D.2d 561, 502 N.Y.S.2d 55 ; Matter of Cohn, 46 A.D.3d 680, 681, 849 N.Y.S.2d 271 ) and, in any event, without merit (see Family Ct. Act §§ 262[a] [iv] ; 1089[b][2]; Matter of Amanda G., 64 A.D.3d 595, 596, 882 N.Y.S.2d 490 ; see also Matter of George Joey S., 194 A.D.2d 328, 329, 598 N.Y.S.2d 229 ).