Opinion
04-21-2016
In re MYA ANAYA M., A Dependent Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., The Children's Aid Society, et al., Petitioner–Respondent, v. BARRY M., Respondent–Appellant.
Law Office of Thomas R. Villecco, P.C., Jericho (Thomas R. Villecco of counsel), for appellant. Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the child.
Law Office of Thomas R. Villecco, P.C., Jericho (Thomas R. Villecco of counsel), for appellant.
Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the child.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan Knipps, J.), entered on or about May 5, 2015, which, among other things, found that respondent father had abandoned the subject child and that his consent to the child's adoption is not required, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Clear and convincing evidence supports the finding that the father's consent to adoption is not required under Domestic Relations Law § 111(1)(d) (see Matter of Isaac Ansimeon F. [Mark P.], 128 A.D.3d 486, 486, 9 N.Y.S.3d 232 [1st Dept.2015] ). The father's admission that he failed to provide financial support for the child is fatal to his claim (id. ). Petitioner agency had no obligation to inform him of his parental obligations (Matter of Tiara J. [Anthony Lamont A.], 118 A.D.3d 545, 546, 988 N.Y.S.2d 56 [1st Dept.2014] ).
The finding of abandonment is also supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Social Services Law § 384–b[3][g][i] ; [4][b] ). The father's two visits to the child at the beginning of the relevant period are insufficient to preclude a finding of abandonment (Matter of Jaylen Derrick Jermaine A. [Samuel K.], 125 A.D.3d 535, 535–536, 5 N.Y.S.3d 370 [1st Dept.2015] ; Matter of Mariah A. [Hugo A.], 109 A.D.3d 751, 752, 973 N.Y.S.2d 15 [1st Dept.2013], lv. dismissed 22 N.Y.3d 994, 979 N.Y.S.2d 558, 2 N.E.3d 926 [2013] ). The father failed to show that he was unable to visit or communicate with the child or the agency, or that the agency prevented or discouraged him from doing so (Social Services Law § 384–b[5][a] ; Matter of Toteanna M. [Keyshana M.], 129 A.D.3d 529, 529–530, 11 N.Y.S.3d 158 [1st Dept.2015], lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 906, 2015 WL 5445906 [2015] ). The agency was under no obligation to make diligent efforts to encourage the father to visit or communicate with the child (Social Services Law § 384–b[5][b] ; Toteanna, 129 A.D.3d at 530, 11 N.Y.S.3d 158 ).
SWEENY, J.P., RENWICK, SAXE, GISCHE, KAHN, JJ., concur.