Orange Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Eddie G. (In re Abbygail H.M.G.)

205 A.D.3d 913

166 N.Y.S.3d 560 (Mem)

In the MATTER OF ABBYGAIL H.M.G. (Anonymous).

Orange County Department of Social Services, respondent;

v.Eddie G. (Anonymous), appellant.

2021-02955

Docket No. B-726-20

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—April 26, 2022

May 18, 2022

Paul N. Weber, Cornwall, NY, for appellant.

Langdon C. Chapman, County Attorney, Goshen, NY (Linda P. DaSilva of counsel), for respondent.

Mark Specthrie, Middletown, NY, attorney for the child.

Stage Law Firm, LLP, Warwick, NY (Christine F. Stage of counsel), attorney for the foster parent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b and Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (Lori Currier Woods, J.), dated April 7, 2021. The order of fact-finding and disposition, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the father permanently neglected the subject child, terminated the father's parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.

ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b and Family Court Act article 6, inter alia, to terminate the parental rights of the father with respect to the subject child. Following fact-finding and dispositional hearings, the Family Court found that the father permanently neglected the child, terminated the father's parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption. The father appeals.

The Family Court properly found, in effect, that the petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence, that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the father's parental relationship with the child (see Social Services Law § 384–b[3][g][i] ; [7][a]; 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 Samatha B. [Cynthia J.], 159 A.D.3d 1006, 1007, 73 N.Y.S.3d 227 ). These efforts included enrolling the father in parenting skills classes, monitoring his compliance with various court-ordered services, and attempting to assist him with obtaining adequate housing (see Matter of Quadir C.B. [Emmanuel D.], 166 A.D.3d 968, 969, 88 N.Y.S.3d 477 ; Matter of Anthony D. [Yonas S.], 159 A.D.3d 818, 818, 69 N.Y.S.3d 833 ). The court also properly found that despite these efforts, although the father completed a parenting skills class, he failed to adequately plan for the child's future, including by failing to take steps to acquire appropriate housing (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a] ; Matter of Anthony D. [Yonas S.], 159 A.D.3d at 818, 69 N.Y.S.3d 833 ; Matter of Beyonce H. [Baranaca H.], 85 A.D.3d 1168, 1169, 927 N.Y.S.2d 121 ). To the extent the father was in partial compliance with the court-ordered programs, it was insufficient to preclude a finding of permanent neglect (see Matter of Elizabeth E.H. [Camille M.M.], 196 A.D.3d 578, 580, 151 N.Y.S.3d 427 ; Matter of Joshua E.R. [Yolaine R.], 123 A.D.3d 723, 726, 997 N.Y.S.2d 739 ).

The Family Court did not err in terminating the father's parental rights. The evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing established that termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interests (see Matter of Elizabeth M.G.C. [Maria L.G.C.], 190 A.D.3d 730, 731, 138 N.Y.S.3d 207 ; Matter of Jonathan B. [Linda S.], 84 A.D.3d 1078, 1080, 923 N.Y.S.2d 638 ). Contrary to the father's contention, a suspended judgment would not be in the best interests of the child, as...