| Matter of Elvis Emil J.C. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06761 [43 AD3d 710] |
| September 18, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Elvis Emil J.C., Jr., and Another, Children Allegedto be Abandoned and Permanently Neglected. Pius XII Youth and Family Services et al.,Respondents; Elvis Emil C., Appellant. |
—[*1] Law Offices of James M. Abramson PLLC, New York (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel), forrespondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Mitchell Katz of counsel), LawGuardian.
Orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen Alpert, J.), entered on or aboutMay 22, 2006, which, upon a finding of abandonment and permanent neglect, terminatedrespondent father's parental rights to the subject children and committed custody andguardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for thepurpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of abandonment was based on clear and convincing evidence that during the sixmonths prior to the filing of the petitions, respondent father failed to contact the subject childrenor agency although able to do so and not prevented or discouraged from doing so by the agency(Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; [5]; Matter of Anthony M., 195 AD2d 315[1993]). Respondent's testimony that he made attempts to locate his children, and then, that hewas prevented by petitioner agency from visiting his children within the statutory time periodwas uncorroborated and the Family Court's rejection of such testimony is entitled to deference(Matter of Annette B., 4 NY3d509, 514 [2005]; Matter of DonelleThomas M., 4 AD3d 137 [2004]). Even accepting respondent's claim that he was incontact with petitioner agency several weeks prior to the petitions being filed, a singlecommunication with the agency does not bar a finding of abandonment (see Matter of JackeeShertte C., 269 AD2d 229 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 757 [2000]; see alsoMatter of Zagary George Bayne G., 185 AD2d 320 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 760[1992]).
The finding of permanent neglect was also supported by clear and convincing evidence(Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). Although petitioner agency only ascertainedrespondent's status as the children's father several months prior to the petitions being filed,respondent's [*2]failure, for almost three years after the childrenwere placed in foster care, to have contact with his children or the agency, although capable ofdoing so, relieved the agency of the obligation to undertake diligent efforts to strengthen theparental relationship (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [e]; Matter of Zagary GeorgeBayne G., 185 AD2d at 321-322). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Catterson, Maloneand Kavanagh, JJ.