Opinion
2003-03367, 2003-05612.
Decided May 24, 2004.
In two related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of two orders of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.), both dated March 6, 2003 (one as to each child), as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, determined that he permanently neglected the children, terminated his parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject children to the petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.
Francine Shraga, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Warren Warren, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Richard Jay Warren and Ira L. Eras of counsel), for respondent Angel Guardian Children and Family Services, Inc.
Monica Drinane, New York, N.Y. (Judith D. Waksberg, Thomas Wittig, and Proskauer Rose, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Jennifer E. Burns] of counsel), Law Guardian for the children.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, PETER B. SKELOS, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing established that the petitioner Angel Guardian Children and Family Services, Inc. (hereinafter the agency), made diligent efforts to assist him in maintaining contact with the children and planning for their future ( see Social Services Law § 384-b[a]) by, inter alia, facilitating visitation, keeping him apprised of the children's welfare, and repeatedly reminding him of the need to find a resource for the care of his children ( see Matter of Vedal Dural B., 289 A.D.2d 574; Matter of Osuany G., 186 A.D.2d 476). Moreover, the finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence that the father, who was incarcerated, failed to plan for the children's future, as he was unable to provide any "realistic and feasible" alternative to having them remain in foster care until his release from prison (Social Services Law § 384-b[c]; see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 143; Matter of Renelle S., 288 A.D.2d 229, 230; Matter of C. Children, 253 A.D.2d 554, 555; Matter of Carmen N., 237 A.D.2d 607, 608). The father was apprised that his sisters were not viable resources. Despite a warning from the agency of the consequences of failing to plan, the father did not suggest any other potential resources ( see Matter of Marcel F., 212 A.D.2d 705, 706). "[A]n incarcerated parent may not satisfy the planning requirement of the statute where the only plan offered is long-term foster care lasting potentially for the child's entire minority" ( Matter of Gregory B., 74 N.Y.2d 77, 90).
The finding that it was in the children's best interests to be freed for adoption was supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct Act §§ 623, 631).
ALTMAN, J.P., H. MILLER, GOLDSTEIN and SKELOS, JJ., concur.