Opinion
CAF 18–02258 330
04-24-2020
In the MATTER OF HANNAH W. Yates County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–respondent; v. William W., Respondent–appellant.
CARA A. WALDMAN, FAIRPORT, FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. DANIELLE A. WARD, PENN YAN, FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT. SUSAN E. GRAY, CANANDAIGUA, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
CARA A. WALDMAN, FAIRPORT, FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
DANIELLE A. WARD, PENN YAN, FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT.
SUSAN E. GRAY, CANANDAIGUA, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., TROUTMAN, WINSLOW, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the amended 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 amended order of Family Court that, inter alia, terminated his parental rights with respect to the subject child on the ground of permanent neglect, transferred guardianship and custody of the child to petitioner, and freed the child for adoption. We affirm.
We reject the contention of the father that petitioner failed to establish that it exercised diligent efforts, as required by Social Services Law § 384–b (7)(a), to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship. "Diligent efforts include reasonable attempts at providing counseling, scheduling regular visitation with the child, providing services to the parents to overcome problems that prevent the discharge of the child into their care, and informing the parents of their child's progress" ( Matter of Jessica Lynn W., 244 A.D.2d 900, 900–901, 665 N.Y.S.2d 205 [4th Dept. 1997] ; see Matter of Caidence M. [Francis W.M.], 162 A.D.3d 1539, 1539, 78 N.Y.S.3d 558 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 905, 89 N.Y.S.3d 112, 113 N.E.3d 946 [2018] ). Here, petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence (see § 384–b [3][g][i] ) that it fulfilled its duty to exercise diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the father's relationship with the child (see Matter of Nicholas B. [Eleanor J.], 83 A.D.3d 1596, 1597, 921 N.Y.S.2d 762 [4th Dept. 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 705, 929 N.Y.S.2d 97, 952 N.E.2d 1092 [2011] ) by providing appropriate services to the father, including parenting education, mental health counseling, sexual behavior counseling, and an alcohol evaluation. The father, however, failed to successfully complete the programs and services that were made available to him. In addition, petitioner maintained regular and consistent supervised visitation with coaching, even after the father repeatedly threatened and behaved inappropriately toward the visitation supervisor, thereby necessitating more intensive supervision and security. Despite petitioner's efforts, the father did not progress to a point where unsupervised visits could occur.
Contrary to the further contention of the father, "there is no evidence that [he] had a realistic plan to provide an adequate and stable home for the child[ ]" ( Matter of Christian C.-B. [Christopher V.B.], 148 A.D.3d 1775, 1777, 50 N.Y.S.3d 766 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 917, 64 N.Y.S.3d 667, 86 N.E.3d 559 [2017] ; see Social Services Law § 384–b [7][c] ), and the court thus properly concluded that he permanently neglected the subject child.