Opinion
171 CAF 19-00160
02-07-2020
In the MATTER OF JEWELS J. and Justin J. Monroe County Department of Human Services, Petitioner–Respondent; v. Justin J., Respondent–Appellant.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. MICHAEL E. DAVIS, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (CAROL L. EISENMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT. ELIZABETH deV. MOELLER, ROCHESTER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
MICHAEL E. DAVIS, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (CAROL L. EISENMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT.
ELIZABETH deV. MOELLER, ROCHESTER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
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 children on the ground of permanent neglect. Contrary to the father's contention, the record supports Family Court's determination that termination of his parental rights, rather than a suspended judgment, is in the children's best interests (see Matter of Deon M. [Vernon B.] , 170 A.D.3d 1586, 1587, 96 N.Y.S.3d 431 [4th Dept. 2019] ; Matter of Kendalle K. [Corin K.], 144 A.D.3d 1670, 1672, 41 N.Y.S.3d 832 [4th Dept. 2016] ). The record establishes that the father failed to complete his service plan and made inadequate efforts to exercise visitation with the children when he was able to do so (see Deon M., 170 A.D.3d at 1587, 96 N.Y.S.3d 431 ). Moreover, the children have been in foster care nearly their entire lives and have developed a "strong and loving bond" with their foster parents, who want to adopt them ( Matter of Alexander Z. [Jimmy Z.], 149 A.D.3d 1177, 1180, 51 N.Y.S.3d 231 [3d Dept. 2017] ; see Matter of Burke H. [Richard H.], 134 A.D.3d 1499, 1502, 23 N.Y.S.3d 776 [4th Dept. 2015] ). Any progress made by the father during the period of his most recent incarceration is insufficient to warrant further prolongation of the children's unsettled familial status (see Alexander Z., 149 A.D.3d at 1180, 51 N.Y.S.3d 231 ; Kendalle K., 144 A.D.3d at 1672, 41 N.Y.S.3d 832 ).