Opinion
14666 Dkt. No. B-15277/17 Case No. 2020-04446
11-23-2021
In the MATTER OF RAUL R. (III), A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Catholic Guardian Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Raul R., Respondent-Appellant, Cinthia R., Respondent-Respondent, Jeanette A., Intervenor-Respondent.
Larry S. Bachner, New York, for appellant. Magovern & Sclafani, Mineola (Frederick J. Magovern of counsel), for Catholic Guardian Services, respondent. Steven P. Forbes, Huntington, for Cinthia S., respondent. Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Jericho (Randall Carmel of counsel), attorney for the child.
Larry S. Bachner, New York, for appellant.
Magovern & Sclafani, Mineola (Frederick J. Magovern of counsel), for Catholic Guardian Services, respondent.
Steven P. Forbes, Huntington, for Cinthia S., respondent.
Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Jericho (Randall Carmel of counsel), attorney for the child.
Acosta, P.J., Gische, Singh, Scarpulla, Mendez, JJ.
Order of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jonathan H. Shim, J.), entered on or about November 4, 2020, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent father's parental rights to the subject child and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence. The record shows that the agency made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by seeking the father's cooperation in developing a plan tailored to his needs, and by, among other things, scheduling visitation and referring him for appropriate services (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][f] ; Matter of Jamal N. [Shanikqua N.], 89 A.D.3d 537, 538, 933 N.Y.S.2d 10 [1st Dept. 2011] ). However, the father refused to accept the agency's referrals (see Matter of Toshea C.J., 62 A.D.3d 587, 587, 880 N.Y.S.2d 36 [1st Dept. 2009] ). In addition, the father's refusal to acknowledge the underlying problems that led to the child's placement prevented him from making any progress in addressing his parental deficiencies (see Matter of Pedro C., 55 A.D.3d 475, 476, 867 N.Y.S.2d 53 [1st Dept. 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 715, 873 N.Y.S.2d 533, 901 N.E.2d 1287 [2009] ).
A preponderance of the evidence supports 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. The child has been living with the foster mother for his entire life in the only home he has known. Further, the foster mother wants to adopt the child, and she meets his special needs (see Matter of Isiah Steven A. [Anne Elizabeth Pierre L.], 100 A.D.3d 559, 560, 955 N.Y.S.2d 10 [1st Dept. 2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 859, 2013 WL 535792 [2013] ; see also Matter of Isaiah Jaysean J. [Cierra Tassandra J.], 128 A.D.3d 438, 439, 8 N.Y.S.3d 325 [1st Dept. 2015] ).
A suspended judgment was not appropriate, as it would not likely have resulted in resolution of the father's substantial difficulties, which he failed to address over a period of many years. At the time of disposition, the father still had not completed required services, including a substance abuse program, nor had he consistently engaged in mental health services. The father also refused to acknowledge, and was ill-equipped to handle, the child's special needs; thus, there was no evidence that he was able to care for the child or would be able to do so in the future (see Matter of Tion Lavon J. [Saadiasha J.], 159 A.D.3d 579, 579–580, 73 N.Y.S.3d 48 [1st Dept. 2018] ).
We have considered the father's remaining contentions and find them unpreserved and unavailing.