| Matter of Jasmine J. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07261 [43 AD3d 1444] |
| September 28, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Jasmine J., an Infant. Erie County Department ofSocial Services, Respondent; Christopher B., Appellant. |
—[*1] Joseph T. Jarzembek, Buffalo, for petitioner-respondent. David C. Schopp, Law Guardian, the Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Charles D.Halvorsen of counsel), for Jasmine J.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), enteredMay 15, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The orderdetermined that respondent abandoned his child and terminated respondent's parental rights.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimouslyaffirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Family Court properly terminated the parental rights of respondent fatherupon determining that petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the fatherabandoned his child. Petitioner established that, in the six months immediately preceding thefiling of the petition, the father failed to communicate with the child and had contact withpetitioner only while in court and through a single letter to the caseworker (see SocialServices Law § 384-b [4] [b]; [5] [a]; Matter of Julius P., 63 NY2d 477, 481[1984]). That limited contact is insubstantial and does not preclude a finding of abandonment (see Matter of Kyle K., 13 AD3d1162 [2004]; Matter of Taylor O.P., 303 AD2d 1024 [2003]; Matter of MichaelB., 284 AD2d 946 [2001]). Although the father testified at the hearing on the petition that heasked the caseworker for the address of his child's foster mother, that testimony was contradictedby the caseworker's testimony that the father never asked for an address to enable him to write tohis child. The conflicting testimony of the father and the caseworker presented a credibility issuefor the court to resolve, and its resolution of credibility issues is entitled to great weight (see Matter of Female F., 40 AD3d993 [2007]; see also Matter ofJoseph E., 16 AD3d 1148 [2005]). Further, a finding of abandonment is not precludedbased on the fact that the father informed petitioner that he planned that his fiancée wouldtake temporary custody of the child and he was not contacted by petitioner following itsunsuccessful attempts to contact his fiancée. In the context of abandonment as opposed topermanent neglect, petitioner "was not 'obligated to contact [the father] and initiate efforts toencourage his parental relationship with [his child]' " (Matter of Alexander B., 277 AD2d937 [2000]; see Julius P., 63 NY2d at 481). In addition, the father's "expressions ofsubjective intent to care for the child at a future time do not preclude a finding of abandonment"(Matter of Lindsey B., 16 [*2]AD3d 1078, 1078 [2005]).We have considered the father's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Lunn, Fahey and Pine, JJ.