Opinion
91885
Decided and Entered: May 8, 2003.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Cortland County (Ames, J.), entered May 14, 2002, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition.
Teresa C. Mulliken, Harpersfield, for appellant.
Margaret McCarthy, Cortland County Department of Social Services, Cortland, for respondent.
Pomeroy, Armstrong, Baranello Casullo L.L.P., Law Guardian, Cortland (James Baranello of counsel).
Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Carpinello and, Rose, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Six months after Family Court decided to permanently terminate petitioner's parental rights in a proceeding brought by respondent pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, and approximately one month before entry of the order of termination which we recently affirmed (Matter of Shane I. [Shane J.], 300 A.D.2d 709), petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking mail contact and visitation with the child. Respondent then moved to dismiss the petition. Family Court granted respondent's motion, finding that petitioner had no standing to seek visitation. Petitioner appeals.
Inasmuch as petitioner's parental rights were terminated in an adversarial proceeding as the result of permanent neglect, we affirm. It is well settled that the termination of petitioner's parental rights necessarily included the denial of "the rights ever to visit, communicate with, or regain custody of the child" (Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 749; see Matter of Adam S. [April S.], 287 A.D.2d 723, 724; Matter of Rita VV. [Grace VV.-Anna WW.], 209 A.D.2d 866, 868, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 811; Matter of Santosky v. Roach, 161 A.D.2d 908, lv dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 981). Thus, petitioner lacked standing, and the timing of his application for visitation before the order terminating his parental rights was entered in no way warrants a different result.
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III and Carpinello, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.