| Matter of Hannah T. (Joshua U.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04250 [95 AD3d 1609] |
| May 31, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| 2—In the Matter of Hannah T. and Others, Alleged to bePermanently Neglected Children. Schenectady County Department of Social Services,Respondent; Joshua U., Appellant. |
—[*1] John N. Lockwood, County Attorney, Schenectady, for respondent. Patricia L. Countryman, Schenectady, attorney for the children.
Malone Jr., J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Clark, J.),entered June 20, 2011, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to SocialServices Law § 384-b, to adjudicate respondent's children to be permanently neglected,and terminated respondent's parental rights.
Respondent's three children (born in 2004, 2005 and 2007) have been in foster care since2007, after respondent was incarcerated for committing domestic violence against the children'smother. He was released from jail in March 2008, but reimprisoned in May 2008 on new chargesand then again released in January 2011. Meanwhile, petitioner commenced this proceeding inJuly 2010 seeking to adjudicate the children to be permanently neglected by [*2]respondent and to terminate his parental rights.[FN1]Following a fact-finding hearing, Family Court found that, despite petitioner's diligent efforts,respondent had permanently neglected the children by failing to realistically plan for their futureand, following a dispositional hearing, found that the termination of respondent's parental rightswas in the children's best interests. Respondent appeals.[FN2]
The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence thatrespondent failed to realistically plan for his children's future by failing to identify possibleresources to take custody of the children while he was incarcerated. Although he initially offeredhis mother as a potential resource for the children, he retracted that suggestion and offered hissister, but refused to provide her name or contact information to petitioner. After petitionerinvestigated respondent's mother and sister, respondent was informed that neither woman was anacceptable resource given their histories of involvement in neglect proceedings. At that time,respondent told his caseworker that his plan for the children was simply to "be a good father andwork to get the children back upon his release from prison" but for them to remain in foster careuntil the expiration of his prison sentence. He offered no details regarding this "plan" or how heplanned to care for them. This purported plan of long-term foster care was not in the children'sbest interests and cannot be considered a realistic plan for their future (see Matter of GregoryB., 74 NY2d 77, 87-90 [1989]; Matter of Kaiden AA. [John BB.], 81 AD3d 1209, 1210-1211[2011]).
A preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court's finding that the termination ofrespondent's parental rights in order to free the children for adoption by their foster parents,rather than the entry of a suspended judgment as requested by respondent, was in the children'sbest interests. The record demonstrates that, upon his release from prison, respondent failed tocomply with program recommendations made by his caseworker, failed to adequately care forand supervise his children during visits and repeatedly made inappropriate comments to themabout their mother despite warnings from the caseworker, thereby failing to make any progresstoward reunification with the children. In addition, respondent, who has a history of chronicsubstance abuse and mental health issues, remained unemployed and homeless at the time of thedispositional hearing, and lived in a shelter where the children were not permitted to reside. Ifreunified with the children, he planned to support them through food stamps and other forms ofpublic assistance. By comparison, the record shows that the children—the two oldest ofwhom have special needs of which respondent has little understanding—have bonded withtheir foster families, who they have been with since 2007, and that those families diligentlyattend to the children's needs and strongly desire to adopt them.[FN3]Upon this record, in which there is no [*3]evidence that providingrespondent with more time would be of any benefit to the children, we find no basis upon whichto disturb Family Court's determination that the termination of respondent's parental rights, ratherthan the entry of a suspended judgment, was in the children's best interests (see Matter of Ronald Anthony G. [RonaldG.], 94 AD3d 424, 425 [2012]; Matter of Syles DD. [Felicia DD.], 91 AD3d 1054, 1056-1057[2012], lv denied 18 NY3d 810 [2012]).
Rose, J.P., Stein, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, withoutcosts.
Footnote 1: The children's mothersurrendered her parental rights as to two of the children and her rights were terminated as to thethird child following a separate permanent neglect proceeding.
Footnote 2: Respondent specifically states inhis brief on appeal that he is not contesting Family Court's finding that petitioner made diligentefforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship.
Footnote 3: The two older children wereplaced with one family and the youngest child was placed with the maternal aunt and her family.