| Matter of Cloey S. (Anthony T.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07017 [99 AD3d 1080] |
| October 18, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Cloey S. and Another, Children Alleged to beNeglected. Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Anthony T., Appellant.(And Two Other Related Proceedings.) |
—[*1] Christine G. Peters, Clinton County Department of Social Services, Plattsburgh, forrespondent. Heidi Dennis, Plattsburgh, attorney for the children.
Stein, J. Appeal from two orders of the Supreme Court (Lawliss, J.), entered October 14,2011 in Clinton County, which, among other things, granted petitioner's application, in aproceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate respondent's children to beneglected.
Respondent is the father of a daughter (born in 2009) and a son (born in 2011). [*2]Petitioner commenced this neglect proceeding against respondent inAugust 2011.[FN*] Respondent waived his right to a fact-finding hearing and admitted all relevant allegationscontained in the petition. Supreme Court then directed that the children be temporarily removedfrom the care of respondent and the children's mother and placed the children with their maternalgrandmother; orders of fact-finding and disposition were thereafter issued, accordingly. At theconclusion of a combined permanency/dispositional hearing, the court found, as relevant here,that petitioner had demonstrated that it made reasonable efforts at reunifying the parents and thechildren and ordered that the children remain in the grandmother's care pending a subsequentpermanency hearing. Respondent now appeals, arguing only that Supreme Court's finding thatpetitioner exercised reasonable efforts to eliminate the need for continued placement of thechildren was in error (see Family Ct Act § 1089 [d] [2] [iii]). We disagree and,therefore, affirm.
The record reflects that respondent has a history of sexual offenses committed against minorsand of failing to follow up with recommended services, which led to, among other things, a priorfinding of neglect. With respect to this proceeding, petitioner's efforts included, among otherthings, reviewing respondent's sex offender risk assessment recommendations, explaining torespondent the importance of his compliance with random weekly drug testing required as acondition of his probation, providing caseworkers to review and explain the terms of existingcourt orders pertaining to respondent in an attempt to facilitate his compliance with such orders,providing referrals to sex offender and substance abuse treatment programs, as well as mentalhealth counseling, facilitating and supervising weekly visitation with his children and providingMedicaid, emergency housing assistance and other similar services. Upon our review of therecord, we are satisfied that petitioner demonstrated that it fulfilled its statutory obligation bymaking reasonable efforts intended to eliminate the need for continued placement of the childrenthat were tailored to respondent's individual situation (see generally Matter of Telsa Z. [Denise Z.], 90 AD3d 1193, 1195[2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 806 [2012]; Matter of Jacelyn TT. [Tonia TT.—Carlton TT.], 80 AD3d1119, 1121 [2011]).
To the extent not specifically addressed herein, respondent's remaining contentions havebeen considered and found to be without merit.
Lahtinen J.P., Malone Jr., McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders areaffirmed, without costs.
Footnote *: Petitioner also commenced aneglect proceeding against Tiffany S., the children's mother. Tiffany S. consented to the removalof the children and to a finding of neglect. She is not a party to this appeal.