Opinion
2013-12-17
In re LYNIK JOMAE E., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Lynik Jomae E., Respondent–Appellant, Harlem Dowling Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, for appellant. Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel), for respondent.
Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, for appellant.Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel), for respondent.
Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York (Richard L. Herzfeld of counsel), attorney for the child.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about June 7, 2012, which, following a fact-finding hearing, inter alia, determined that respondent father was a notice father whose consent was not required for the adoption of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
There exists no basis to disturb the court's determination that respondent's consent to the adoption of the child was not required. The record supports the findings that respondent had not provided a “fair and reasonable sum” toward the child's support, although he had the means, and that he did not communicate with the child on a regular basis (Domestic Relations Law § 111[d] ). Respondent's incarceration did not absolve him of these parental obligations (see Matter of Jaden Christopher W.–McC. [Michael L. McC.], 100 A.D.3d 486, 954 N.Y.S.2d 513 [1st Dept.2012], lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 858, 2013 WL 452291 [2013] ), and his testimony concerning previous support provided to the child was not consistent ( see Matter of Aaron P., 61 A.D.3d 448, 877 N.Y.S.2d 30 [1st Dept.2009] ).
We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing. FRIEDMAN, J.P., ACOSTA, RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, GISCHE, JJ., concur.