Opinion
10180
10-24-2019
IN RE SHAQUEL A.M., also known as Shaquel M., and Others, Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Jamel C.M., etc., Respondent–Appellant, v. Saint Dominic's Home, Petitioner–Respondent, Administrative for Children's Services, Respondent.
Andrew J. Baer, New York, for appellant. Warren & Warren PC, Brooklyn (Ira L. Eras of counsel), for respondent. Larry S. Bachner, New York, attorney for the children.
Andrew J. Baer, New York, for appellant.
Warren & Warren PC, Brooklyn (Ira L. Eras of counsel), for respondent.
Larry S. Bachner, New York, attorney for the children.
Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Oing, Singh, JJ.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Valerie Pels, J.), entered on or about June 5, 2018, to the extent it brings up for review a fact-finding determination of permanent neglect against respondent father, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence that the agency made diligent efforts to strengthen and encourage the relationship between respondent and the children and that nevertheless respondent failed to maintain contact with the children or plan for their future (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a] ). The agency formulated a service plan, referred respondent to a substance abuse counseling program and a parenting skills program, repeatedly reminded him of the consequences of failure to comply, and provided drug testing. Respondent completed the parenting program, but did not make sufficient progress to enroll in or complete the other programs (see e.g. Matter of Joseph P. [Edwin P.], 143 A.D.3d 529, 39 N.Y.S.3d 142 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1110, 45 N.Y.S.3d 353, 68 N.E.3d 79 [2016] ). Moreover, he refused to submit to drug tests. Respondent was uncooperative and failed to accept that his anger issues and erratic behavior interfered with his ability to be a parent to the children (see e.g. Matter of Raekwon Maxx A., 47 A.D.3d 435, 849 N.Y.S.2d 520 [1st Dept. 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 703, 864 N.Y.S.2d 807, 894 N.E.2d 1198 [2008] ; Matter of Samantha C., 305 A.D.2d 167, 757 N.Y.S.2d 849 [1st Dept. 2003], lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 508, 764 N.Y.S.2d 235, 795 N.E.2d 1244 [2003] ).
We find no reason for disturbing the court's finding that respondent is a consent father, rather than a notice father (see Domestic Relations Law § 111[1][d], [3][b] ; Cheeks v. City of New York, 123 A.D.3d 532, 556, 998 N.Y.S.2d 847 [1st Dept. 2014] ).