Opinion
2012-06-8
In the Matter of DREVONNE G., Destiny G., and Dante G. Erie County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; Darrell G., Sr., Respondent–Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered November 30, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b. The order, among other things, adjudged that respondent abandoned the subject children and transferred respondent's guardianship and custody rights to petitioner. William D. Broderick, Jr., Elma, for respondent-appellant. Joseph T. Jarzembek, Buffalo, for petitioner-respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered November 30, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b. The order, among other things, adjudged that respondent abandoned the subject children and transferred respondent's guardianship and custody rights to petitioner.
William D. Broderick, Jr., Elma, for respondent-appellant. Joseph T. Jarzembek, Buffalo, for petitioner-respondent.
Bernadette M. Hoppe, Attorney for the Child, Buffalo, for Destiny G.
Kathleen M. Contrino, Attorney for the Child, North Tonawanda, for Dante G.
Eugene P. Adams, Attorney for the Child, Buffalo, for Drevonne G.
MEMORANDUM:
Respondent father appeals from an order terminating his parental rights with respect to his three children on the ground of abandonment. The father contends that his parental rights may not be terminated because the children's mother retained her parental rights and the children were not freed for adoption. We reject that contention ( see Matter of Cayden L.R., 83 A.D.3d 1550, 921 N.Y.S.2d 605;Matter of Peter GG., 33 A.D.3d 1104, 1105, 822 N.Y.S.2d 668;see also Matter of Charles FF., 44 A.D.3d 1137, 1139, 844 N.Y.S.2d 455,lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 817, 851 N.Y.S.2d 126, 881 N.E.2d 222). Although “Social Services Law § 384–b clearly encourages placing children in permanent homes, its language does not prohibit termination of parental rights when the children are not freed for adoption” ( Peter GG., 33 A.D.3d at 1105, 822 N.Y.S.2d 668). We conclude that Family Court properly terminated the father's parental rights inasmuch as petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the father “evince[d] an intent to forego his ... parental rights and obligations” (§ 384–b [5][a]; see Matter of Annette B., 4 N.Y.3d 509, 513, 796 N.Y.S.2d 569, 829 N.E.2d 661,rearg. denied 5 N.Y.3d 783, 801 N.Y.S.2d 803, 835 N.E.2d 663;Matter of Julius P., 63 N.Y.2d 477, 481, 483 N.Y.S.2d 175, 472 N.E.2d 1003). Contrary to his contention, the father failed to demonstrate that “there were circumstances rendering contact with the child[ren] or [petitioner] infeasible, or that he was discouraged from doing so by [petitioner]” (Matter of Regina A., 43 A.D.3d 725, 725, 843 N.Y.S.2d 207;see also Matter of Alexander B., 277 A.D.2d 937, 716 N.Y.S.2d 253;Matter of Markus R., 273 A.D.2d 919, 708 N.Y.S.2d 792).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.