| Matter of Pedro Jason William M. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09095 [45 AD3d 431] |
| November 20, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Pedro Jason William M. and Others, Infants. PedroM., Appellant; Episcopal Social Services et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Magovern & Sclafani, New York City (Mary Jane Sclafani of counsel), for respondents. Anne Reiniger, New York City, Law Guardian.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered November 17, 2005,which, after a hearing, determined that respondent was not a person whose consent to hischildren's adoption was required, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent's claim that Domestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (d) is unconstitutional inimposing support and visitation obligations on unwed fathers but not on unwed mothers iswithout merit (see Matter of Jonathan Logan P., 309 AD2d 576 [2003]). Also withoutmerit is his argument that, in analyzing his constitutional claim, the court erred in considering theextent to which he visited his children when they were in foster care (see Matter of RaquelMarie X., 76 NY2d 387, 401 [1990], cert denied sub nom. Robert C. v Miguel T.,498 US 984 [1990] ["The unwed father's protected interest requires both a biological connectionand full parental responsibility; he must both be a father and behave like one"]).
Given the absence of evidence that respondent provided financial support according to hismeans and either visited the children at least monthly or, when visitation was not possible,communicated regularly with them or their custodians (Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1][d]; Jonathan Logan P., supra), the court correctly found that respondent neveracquired a [*2]constitutionally protected interest in his children(see Lehr v Robertson, 463 US 248, 262 [1983]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli,Saxe, Nardelli and Kavanagh, JJ.