Opinion
6349
04-24-2018
IN RE KARINA A.G., a Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Jose G., Respondent–Appellant, v. Catholic Guardian Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Andrew J. Baer, New York, for appellant. Magovern & Sclafani, Mineola (Joanna M. Roberson of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney for the child.
Andrew J. Baer, New York, for appellant.
Magovern & Sclafani, Mineola (Joanna M. Roberson of counsel), for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney for the child.
Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Webber, Gesmer, Moulton, JJ.
Order of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Valerie Pels, J.), entered on or about May 12, 2017, to the extent it found that respondent father permanently neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The record supports the court's finding that, despite the agency's diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, respondent failed to plan for the child's future (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7] [a] ; Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139 [1984] ). The agency referred respondent for drug treatment, parenting skills, and anger management classes, and scheduled and facilitated visitation with the child (see id. § 384–b[7][f] ; see e.g. Matter of Nekia C. [Kevin E.C.–Laurel S.McC.], 155 A.D.3d 431, 63 N.Y.S.3d 234 [1st Dept. 2017] ; Matter of Felicia Malon Rogue J. [Lena J.], 146 A.D.3d 725, 46 N.Y.S.3d 66 [1st Dept. 2017] ). However, throughout this period, respondent repeatedly rejected the agency's efforts (see Matter of Dante Alexander W. [Norman W.], 148 A.D.3d 492, 493, 48 N.Y.S.3d 668 [1st Dept. 2017] ). He resisted the agency's attempts to contact him. He declined the agency's referrals. Although he found his own program, he refused to provide the agency with authorizations to obtain information or monitor his progress; he failed to provide any information about the services the program offered, the services he was participating in, or his level of compliance with the program.
The record shows further that respondent lacked insight into and failed to take responsibility for his actions, which resulted in the child's removal (see Matter of Nephra P. [John Lee P.], 149 A.D.3d 642, 643, 51 N.Y.S.3d 91 [1st Dept. 2017] ; Matter of Yasmine F. [Junior F.], 145 A.D.3d 455, 43 N.Y.S.3d 31 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 973, 52 N.Y.S.3d 282, 74 N.E.3d 666 [2017] ). Respondent repeatedly blamed the agency and the foster mother for sabotaging him and brainwashing the child to say that she did not want to visit or communicate with him. When the child did visit him, he behaved in an intimidating manner toward her, and showed no empathy for her or understanding of her feelings.