Opinion
2013-01-9
In the Matter of KEVIN L. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Jose L.L. (Anonymous), appellant.
Frank Bruno, Jr., Glendale, N.Y., for appellant. Daniel Gartenstein, Hawthorne, N.Y., for respondent.
Frank Bruno, Jr., Glendale, N.Y., for appellant. Daniel Gartenstein, Hawthorne, N.Y., for respondent.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Amy Hausknecht of counsel), for appellant.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (McGowan, J.), entered July 13, 2011, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that he permanently neglected the subject child, terminated his parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to the New York City Administration for Children's Services and the New York Foundling Hospital for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court properly found that the New York Foundling Hospital (hereinafter the agency) exercised diligent efforts to strengthen his relationship with his child by, inter alia, facilitating visitation, developing a service plan, advising him that he needed to secure adequate housing, and offering housing referrals ( see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 142, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824;Matter of Michael A.B. [ Richard A.B.], 98 A.D.3d 579, 949 N.Y.S.2d 636;Matter of Daniel A.G. [ Jose Ricardo G.], 78 A.D.3d 831, 910 N.Y.S.2d 376;Matter of Teshana Tracey T. [ Janet T.], 71 A.D.3d 1032, 896 N.Y.S.2d 470;Matter of Arthur C., 66 A.D.3d 1009, 887 N.Y.S.2d 679). However, the father refused to accept the agency's assistance and did not acquire appropriate housing. An agency that has exercised diligent efforts but is faced with an uncooperative parent is deemed to have fulfilled its statutory obligations ( see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d at 144, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824;Matter of Zechariah J. [ Valrick J.], 84 A.D.3d 1087, 923 N.Y.S.2d 653,cert. denied sub nom. Valrick J. v. Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 239, 184 L.Ed.2d 126;Matter of John M. [ Raymond K.], 82 A.D.3d 1100, 919 N.Y.S.2d 346). Thus, under these circumstances, the Family Court correctly found that, despite diligent efforts by the agency, the father failed to adequately plan for his child's future and, therefore, permanently neglected the child ( see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][c]; Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 N.Y.2d 838, 842, 501 N.Y.S.2d 647, 492 N.E.2d 775;Matter of Shamel H., 61 A.D.3d 685, 876 N.Y.S.2d 515;Matter of Tynell S., 43 A.D.3d 1171, 842 N.Y.S.2d 90).
Additionally, the Family Court properly determined that the best interests of the child would be served by terminating the father's parental rights and freeing the child for adoption by his foster parent, with whom he had been living for over three years, which was substantially all of his life ( see Matter of Hadiyyah J.M. [ Fatima D.R.], 91 A.D.3d 874, 938 N.Y.S.2d 565;Matter of Zechariah J. [ Valrick J.], 84 A.D.3d 1087, 923 N.Y.S.2d 653;Matter of Daevon Lamar P., 48 A.D.3d 469, 849 N.Y.S.2d 806).