Opinion
Nos. 406 406A Docket No. B2608-9/21 No. 2022-03095
06-06-2023
In the Matter of Samiyah C.B.H., and Another, Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Sammy H. Respondent-Appellant, Forestdale, Inc., Petitioner-Respondent.
Law Office of Lewis S. Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for appellant. Rosin Steinhagen Mendel PLLC, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Riti P. Singh of counsel), attorney for the children.
Law Office of Lewis S. Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for appellant.
Rosin Steinhagen Mendel PLLC, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Riti P. Singh of counsel), attorney for the children.
Before: Kapnick, J.P., Oing, Moulton, Kennedy, Mendez, JJ.
Orders of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (David Kaplan, J.), entered on or about June 14, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from, after a hearing, determined that respondent father permanently neglected the subject children, terminated his parental rights and committed custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence (Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a]). The agency made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the father's relationship with the children by, among other things, referring him to parenting classes, drug screening, and mental health and substance abuse treatment programs, and by scheduling visitation with the children (see Matter of Christian D. [Marian R.], 157 A.D.3d 599, 599 [1st Dept 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 904 [2018]; Matter of Lihanna A. [Marcella H.], 140 A.D.3d 404, 404 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 904 [2016]). Despite these diligent efforts, the father failed to meaningfully engage in the services, continued to test positive for prescription drugs while refusing to provide a valid prescription or authorization for the agency to obtain his medical information, and failed to visit the children regularly (see Matter of Justice V. [Stephanie M.], 198 A.D.3d 586, 586 [1st Dept 2021]; Matter of Alexis Alexandra G. [Brandy H.], 134 A.D.3d 547, 548 [1st Dept 2015]). Even if the father's physical ailments prevented him from attending in-person visits, no explanations were given for his failure to attend the virtual visits.
The determination that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate the father's parental rights and free the children for adoption was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). It is clear that the father had no feasible plan for the children's future, and the foster parents, with whom the children have bonded, have provided the children with a stable and loving home, met their special needs, and wished to adopt them (see Matter of Nahzzear Y.G. [Tanisha N.], 172 A.D.3d 526, 527 [1st Dept 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1113 [2019]; Matter of Unique M. [Veronica A.], 154 A.D.3d 590 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 909 [2018]).
The father lacks standing to raise the argument that the mother should have been granted a suspended judgment (see Matter of Christian C.-B. [Christopher V.B.], 148 A.D.3d 1775, 1775-1776 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 917 [2017]). In any event, any request for a suspended judgment is unpreserved and, even if preserved, a suspended judgment would not have been warranted (see Matter of Matthew Louis S. [Raymond R.], 150 A.D.3d 430, 431 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 913 [2017]).