Opinion
2013-12-4
In the Matter of COREY S. (Anonymous). New York Foundling Hospital, et al., respondents; Angel S. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Angel S. (Anonymous), appellant, v. Sandra I.V. (Anonymous), respondent, Administration for Children's Services, respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 2).
Austin I. Idehen, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. Quinlan and Fields, Hawthorne, N.Y. (Daniel Gartenstein of counsel), for New York Foundling Hospital, respondent in Proceeding No. 1.
Austin I. Idehen, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. Quinlan and Fields, Hawthorne, N.Y. (Daniel Gartenstein of counsel), for New York Foundling Hospital, respondent in Proceeding No. 1.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Marcia Egger of counsel), attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect and a related child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, Richmond County (Wolff, J.), dated October 11, 2012, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, determined that he permanently neglected the subject child, terminated his parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child to the Administration for Children's Services and the New York Foundling Hospital for the purpose of adoption, and (2) an order of the same court dated September 17, 2012, which dismissed his petition for custody of the subject child.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition dated October 11, 2012, and the order dated September 17, 2012, are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
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 ( seeSocial Services Law § 384–b[7]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 142–143, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824). These efforts included facilitating visitation, providing the father with referrals for drug treatment programs and mental health evaluations and counseling, and repeatedly advising the father of the need to attend and complete such programs and submit to random drug screenings ( see Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139; Matter of Temple S.M. [ Tricia M. ], 97 A.D.3d 681, 947 N.Y.S.2d 611). Despite these efforts, the father failed to plan for the child's future by, inter alia, failing to cooperate with drug screenings, failing to complete a mental health evaluation and, following a court-ordered hair follicle drug test, testing positive for cocaine ( see Matter of Carmine A.B. [ Nicole B. ], 101 A.D.3d 711, 955 N.Y.S.2d 190; Matter of Leon G., 7 A.D.3d 524, 776 N.Y.S.2d 77; Matter of Ronell Dashawn P., 296 A.D.2d 502, 745 N.Y.S.2d 484). Moreover, based on the evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the child to terminate the father's parental rights ( see Matter of “Baby Boy” E., 42 A.D.3d 536, 840 N.Y.S.2d 130; Matter of Juanita F., 291 A.D.2d 496, 740 N.Y.S.2d 343; Matter of Alfred B., 212 A.D.2d 529, 622 N.Y.S.2d 297).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit. DILLON, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.