Opinion
2013-04157, Docket No. B-24109-09.
10-08-2014
In the Matter of “Male” G. (Anonymous), also known as “Baby Boy” G. (Anonymous), also known as Davion G. (Anonymous). SCO Family of Services, et al., petitioners-respondents; David D. (Anonymous), also known as Jason B. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent.
Frank Bruno, Jr., Glendale, N.Y., for appellant. Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for petitioner-respondent SCO Family of Services. Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the child.
Frank Bruno, Jr., Glendale, N.Y., for appellant.
Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for petitioner-respondent SCO Family of Services.
Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the child.
Opinion In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Arias, J.), dated February 21, 2013, as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, and upon his default in appearing at the dispositional hearing, found that he permanently neglected the subject child, terminated his parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child to the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York and the petitioner SCO Family of Services for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as terminated the father's parental rights and freed the child for adoption, upon his default in appearing at the dispositional hearing, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The father may not appeal from the dispositional portion of the order in light of his failure to appear at the dispositional hearing (see Matter of Jahira N.D. [Shaniqua S.S.], 111 A.D.3d 826, 826–827, 975 N.Y.S.2d 744 ; Matter of Amber Megan D. v. Robin D., 54 A.D.3d 338, 338, 862 N.Y.S.2d 568 ).
The Family Court properly found that the father permanently neglected the subject child. The petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence, that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship. These efforts included facilitating visitation and providing the father with referrals to drug treatment and parenting skills programs (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7] ; Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 380–381, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139 ; Matter of Egypt A.A.G. [Kimble G.], 108 A.D.3d 533, 534, 969 N.Y.S.2d 111 ; Matter of Christina M.R. [Lynette Casandra C.], 101 A.D.3d 1021, 957 N.Y.S.2d 251 ). The petitioner further established, by clear and convincing evidence that, despite its efforts, the father failed to plan for the child's future during the relevant statutory period (see Matter of Devon M. [Dina J.], 119 A.D.3d 864, 865, 989 N.Y.S.2d 352 ; Matter of Jada Ta–Toneyia L., 66 A.D.3d 901, 902, 886 N.Y.S.2d 640 ; Matter of Jordan F., 62 A.D.3d 698, 698–699, 879 N.Y.S.2d 499 ; Matter of Christopher A.R. v. Maria R., 57 A.D.3d 789, 790, 870 N.Y.S.2d 397 ).
BALKIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, CHAMBERS and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.