Opinion
2019–08788 Docket Nos. B–2589–16, B–2593–16, B–2599–16, B–20566–16
11-25-2020
In the MATTER OF ALFONSO J.C. (Anonymous), Jr. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent; v. Jamie A. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Adriannha A.D. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent; v. Jamie A. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Harold A.R.A. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent; v. Jamie A. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 3) In the Matter of Anthony J.A.A. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent; v. Jamie A. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 4)
Glenn Gucciardo, Northport, NY, for appellant. Dennis M. Cohen, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Alex J. Berkman of counsel), for respondent. David M. Johnson, Patchogue, NY, attorney for the children.
Glenn Gucciardo, Northport, NY, for appellant.
Dennis M. Cohen, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Alex J. Berkman of counsel), for respondent.
David M. Johnson, Patchogue, NY, attorney for the children.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., RUTH C. BALKIN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In four related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b and Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Bernard Cheng, J.), dated June 19, 2019. The order of disposition, upon an order of fact-finding of the same court dated July 12, 2018, and after a dispositional hearing, terminated the father's parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner commenced these proceedings, inter alia, to terminate the father's parental rights to the subject children on the ground of permanent neglect. After fact-finding and dispositional hearings, the Family Court found, among other things, that the father permanently neglected the children, terminated his parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the children to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption. The father appeals.
The Family Court's finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence. The petitioner met its initial burden of demonstrating that it undertook diligent efforts, which were specifically tailored to the father's individual situation, to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship between the father and the subject children (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][f] ; Matter of Mateo M.Q. [Jessica Q.], 185 A.D.3d 1037, 1038, 127 N.Y.S.3d 593 ; Matter of Ruben J.D. [Shante M.V.], 179 A.D.3d 675, 676, 117 N.Y.S.3d 251 ; Matter of Maria R.O. [Patrick M.], 176 A.D.3d 1222, 1222–1223, 109 N.Y.S.3d 678 ). These efforts included referrals for drug treatment, domestic violence prevention, and parenting classes, repeatedly advising the father of the need to attend and complete such programs, as well as providing information to the father about facilitating visitation between him and the children. Despite these efforts, the father failed to plan for the children's future (see Matter of Mathias M.G. [Michael G.], 185 A.D.3d 684, 684, 124 N.Y.S.3d 848 ; Matter of Noel Sean CJ Ivan W. [Danica W.], 179 A.D.3d 1078, 1079, 118 N.Y.S.3d 629 ; Matter of Innocence A.M.-F. [Khadijah N.M.-F], 173 A.D.3d 869, 870, 105 N.Y.S.3d 437).
"[A]t the ... dispositional hearing the court must consider only the best interests of the child involved" ( Matter of Hailey ZZ. [Ricky ZZ.], 19 N.Y.3d 422, 430, 948 N.Y.S.2d 846, 972 N.E.2d 87 ; see Family Ct Act § 631 ; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147–148, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 ). " ‘The factors to be considered in making the determination include the parent or caretaker's capacity to properly supervise the child, based on current information and the potential threat of future abuse and neglect’ " ( Matter of Jaheem M. [Cymon M.], 174 A.D.3d 610, 611, 107 N.Y.S.3d 34, quoting Matter of Eliora B. [Kennedy B.], 146 A.D.3d 772, 774, 45 N.Y.S.3d 144 ). A dispositional order suspending judgment provides a brief grace period to give a parent found to have permanently neglected a child a second chance to prepare for reunification with the child (see Family Ct Act § 633 ; Matter of Michael B., 80 N.Y.2d 299, 311, 590 N.Y.S.2d 60, 604 N.E.2d 122 ; Matter of Adam M.D. [Victoria M.C.], 170 A.D.3d 1006, 1007, 94 N.Y.S.3d 860 ; Matter of Amaarie L.M. [Kelly R.], 166 A.D.3d 977, 978, 88 N.Y.S.3d 472 ). A suspended judgment is permitted only where the court determines that such disposition is in the child's best interests (see Matter of Michael B., 80 N.Y.2d at 311, 590 N.Y.S.2d 60, 604 N.E.2d 122 ; Matter of Adam M.D. [Victoria M.C.], 170 A.D.3d at 1007, 94 N.Y.S.3d 860 ). Here, we agree with the Family Court's determination that it would be in the children's best interests to terminate the father's parental rights and that a suspended judgment was not appropriate, since the father lacked insight into his problems and failed to address the issues that led to the children's removal and the finding of permanent neglect (see Matter of Joel J.E.G. [Daniel David G.], 184 A.D.3d 641, 641–642, 123 N.Y.S.3d 533 ; Matter of Anjae R.K. [Johnayia S.], 183 A.D.3d 735, 736, 121 N.Y.S.3d 892 ; Matter of Adam M.D. [Victoria M.C.], 170 A.D.3d at 1007, 94 N.Y.S.3d 860 ; Matter of Amaarie L.M. [Kelly R.], 166 A.D.3d at 978, 88 N.Y.S.3d 472 ).
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., BALKIN, COHEN and LASALLE, JJ., concur.