| Matter of Gina Rachel L. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07476 [44 AD3d 367] |
| October 9, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Gina Rachel L., a Child Alleged to be PermanentlyNeglected. Steven L., Appellant; St. Vincent's Services, Inc.,Respondent. |
—[*1] Magovern & Sclafani, New York (Joanna M. Roberson of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), LawGuardian.
Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J.), entered on orabout May 4, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, upon a finding of permanent neglect,terminated respondent father's parental rights to the subject child and committed her custody andguardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose ofadoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent father's argument that the petition was jurisdictionally defective for failing tospecify the diligent efforts petitioner agency made to encourage and strengthen the parentalrelationship (Family Ct Act § 614 [1] [c]) is unpreserved as it raised for the first time onappeal (see Matter of Kimberly VanessaJ., 37 AD3d 185 [2007]). Were we to review this argument, we would find that theallegations sufficiently notified the father of the grounds on which the permanent neglect petitionwere predicated. Furthermore, the evidence at the fact-finding hearing, including the case notesprepared by the agency's caseworkers, demonstrated the diligent efforts that were taken to assistthe father in formulating a plan for the return of his daughter (id.).
The finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence (SocialServices Law § 384-b [7] [a]). The agency developed a realistic plan tailored to the father'sneeds, including scheduling of visitation and referrals to parenting skills classes and counselingprograms, and despite these diligent efforts, the father failed to fulfill the requirements set forthby the agency, or otherwise take steps to correct the conditions that led to the removal of hisdaughter (see Matter of TashonaSharmaine A., 24 AD3d 135 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 715 [2006]).[*2]
We have considered the father's remaining contentionsand find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Marlow, Gonzalez and Malone,JJ.