Opinion
December 9, 1991
Appeal from the Family Court, Westchester County (Spitz, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner met its burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the appellant abandoned her child (see, Santosky v Kramer, 455 U.S. 745; Matter of Michael B., 58 N.Y.2d 71; Matter of I.R., 153 A.D.2d 559). The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing established that any contact between the appellant and the child during the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition was incidental and not initiated by the appellant (see, Matter of Leabert V., 174 A.D.2d 883). Additionally, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that there existed a good reason for her failure to visit or communicate with the child (see, Matter of I.R. supra; Matter of Catholic Child Care Socy., 112 A.D.2d 1039). The appellant's testimony that the petitioner failed to produce the child for visitation was directly contradicted by the caseworker, who stated that the appellant did not comply with visitation schedules, and appeared at the petitioner's offices only to inquire about financial assistance. The caseworker testified that during those appearances, it was she, the caseworker, who raised the issue of visitation, but that the appellant was uninterested in seeing the child. This conflict presented an issue of credibility for the trier of fact.
We also find that the record supports the Family Court's determination that the appellant permanently neglected the child by failing to plan substantially and continuously for the future of the child despite the petitioner's diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [a], [c], [f]; Matter of Gregory B., 74 N.Y.2d 77; Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 N.Y.2d 838; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136). "In determining whether a parent has planned for the future of the child, the court may consider the failure of the parent to utilize medical, psychiatric, psychological and other social and rehabilitative services * * * made available to such parent" (Social Services Law § 384-b [c]). Here, the appellant failed to complete necessary psychiatric and psychological evaluations and refused to participate in parenting skills therapy made available to her. Therefore, we concur with the Family Court in its finding of permanent neglect. Mangano, P.J., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and O'Brien, JJ., concur.