SCO Family of Servs. v. Yonas S. (In re Anthony D.)

159 A.D.3d 818

69 N.Y.S.3d 833 (Mem)

In the MATTER OF ANTHONY D. (Anonymous).

SCO Family of Services, respondent;

v.Yonas S. (Anonymous), appellant.

2016–01916

Docket No. B–6339–13

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

Submitted—February 15, 2018

March 14, 2018

Michael A. Fiechter, Bellmore, NY, for appellant.

Leventhal, Mullaney & Blinkoff, LLP, Roslyn, N.Y. (Jeffrey Blinkoff of counsel), for respondent.

Stewart Altman, Mineola, NY, attorney for the child.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SHERI S. ROMAN, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Mary R. O'Donoghue, J.), dated January 4, 2016. The order, after a hearing, determined that the father permanently neglected the subject child, terminated the father's parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody 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.

In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b and Family Court Act article 6 to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition, which found that he permanently neglected the subject child, terminated his parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.

Contrary to the father's contention, the petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence, that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen his relationship with the subject child, which efforts were specifically tailored to the father's individual situation (see Social Services Law § 384–b[3][g][i] ; [4][d]; [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 Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 380–381, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139 ; Matter of Christopher S. [Elizabeth S.], 155 A.D.3d 630, 632, 63 N.Y.S.3d 490 ; Matter of Shaquan D.M. [Shaquanna M.], 150 A.D.3d 1119, 1119, 52 N.Y.S.3d 660 ). These efforts included making referrals to mental health, parenting, and housing services, encouraging the father's compliance with the programs, and facilitating visitation (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][f] ; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 142, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 ; Matter of Hailey ZZ. [Ricky ZZ.], 19 N.Y.3d at 429, 948 N.Y.S.2d 846, 972 N.E.2d 87 ). Despite these efforts, the father failed to plan for the return of the child by failing, among other things, to take steps to acquire appropriate housing (see Matter of Davina R.M.R.L. [Jennifer A.], 123 A.D.3d 1126, 999 N.Y.S.2d 188 ; Matter of Kevin L. [Jose L.L.], 102 A.D.3d 695, 696, 956 N.Y.S.2d 911 ; Matter of Arthur C., 66 A.D.3d 1009, 1011, 887 N.Y.S.2d 679 ). There was clear and convincing evidence of the father's permanent neglect of the child (see Social Services Law § 384–b[3][g] ).

Moreover, the Family Court properly determined that termination of the father's parental rights, rather than the entry of a suspended judgment, was in the child's best interests (see Family Ct. Act § 631 ; Matter of Hector V.P. [Mariana V.], 146 A.D.3d 889,...