| Matter of Charles B. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 10309 [46 AD3d 1430] |
| December 21, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Charles B., V, and Another, Infants. OnondagaCounty Department of Social Services, Respondent; Charles B., III, Appellant, et al.,Respondent. |
—[*1] Anthony P. Rivizzigno, County Attorney, Syracuse (Sara J. Langan of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Martha Walsh Hood, J.),entered December 13, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. Theorder, insofar as appealed from, terminated the parental rights of respondent Charles B., III basedon a finding of permanent neglect and freed the subject children for adoption.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimouslyaffirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order terminating his parental rights basedon a finding of permanent neglect and freeing the subject children for adoption. We reject thefather's contention that petitioner failed to establish permanent neglect by the requisite clear andconvincing evidence (see generally Social Services Law § 384-b [3] [g]; Matterof Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142-143 [1984]). The record establishes that the fatherchose to have no contact with his children for a period of almost five months and that hisvisitation was sporadic for a period of over seven months, for periods of time both before andafter the five-month period. We thus conclude that petitioner established that, for a period ofmore than one year, the father failed "substantially and continuously or repeatedly to maintaincontact with or plan for the future of" his children (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a];see Matter of Raychael L.W., 298 AD2d 930 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 504[2002]; Matter of Latasha W., 268 AD2d 340, 341 [2000]). We further reject thecontention of the father that Family Court abused its discretion in terminating his parental rights.The record "establishe[s] that the child[ren]'s best interests dictated [that they] be freed foradoption by [their] foster parent of four years" (Matter of Aliya Cheray Love L., 39 AD3d 364, 365 [2007]).Finally, the father did not request a suspended judgment and thus failed to preserve for ourreview his alternative contention that the court should have entered a suspended judgment (see Matter of Rosalinda R., 16 AD3d1063, 1064 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 702 [2005]). Present—Scudder, P.J.,Smith, Centra, Lunn and Peradotto, JJ.