Opinion
2014-06-13
In the Matter of MAKAYLA S. Steuben County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; David S., Respondent–Appellant, and Alecia P., Respondent.
Raymond P. Kot, II, Williamsville, for Respondent–Appellant. James Doyle, III, Bath, for Petitioner–Respondent.
Raymond P. Kot, II, Williamsville, for Respondent–Appellant. James Doyle, III, Bath, for Petitioner–Respondent.
Christine M. Valkenburgh, Attorney for the Child, Bath.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, SCONIERS, and VALENTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, respondent father appeals from an order that, inter alia, terminated his parental rights with respect to the subject child and ordered that the child be freed for adoption. We reject the father's contention that Family Court erred in finding that the child is a permanently neglected child and in terminating the father's parental rights with respect to her. Petitioner met its burden of establishing “by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the relationship between the [father] and [the child] by providing ‘services and other assistance aimed at ameliorating or resolving the problems preventing [the child's] return to [the father's] care’ ..., and that the [father] failed substantially and continuously to plan for the future of the child although physically and financially able to do so ... Although the [father] participated in the services offered by petitioner, [he] did not successfully address or gain insight into the problems that led to the removal of the child and continued to prevent the child's safe return” (Matter of Giovanni K., 62 A.D.3d 1242, 1243, 878 N.Y.S.2d 846,lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 715, 2009 WL 1851454;see§ 384–b [7][a] ). Contrary to the father's further contentions, we conclude that the court properly denied his request for a suspended judgment ( see Matter of Lillianna G. [Orena G.], 104 A.D.3d 1224, 1225, 960 N.Y.S.2d 805;Matter of Dahmani M. [Jana M.], 104 A.D.3d 1245, 1246, 961 N.Y.S.2d 672), and that he received meaningful representation ( see Matter of Michael C., 82 A.D.3d 1651, 1652, 920 N.Y.S.2d 502,lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 704, 2011 WL 2535216;Matter of Nathaniel W., 24 A.D.3d 1240, 1241, 806 N.Y.S.2d 838,lv. denied6 N.Y.3d 711, 814 N.Y.S.2d 600, 847 N.E.2d 1173). Finally, we have reviewed the father's remaining contention and conclude that it lacks merit.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.