| Matter of Joseph Kenneth B. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00492 [47 AD3d 809] |
| January 22, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Joseph Kenneth B., Jr. St. Vincent's Services, Inc.,et al., Respondents; Joseph Kenneth B., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In theMatter of Andrea Spring Leelan B. St. Vincent's Services, Inc., et al., Respondents; JosephKenneth B., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Magovern & Sclafani, New York, N.Y. (Marion C. Perry and Frederick Magovern ofcounsel), for petitioner-respondent St. Vincent's Services, Inc. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Susan Clement of counsel), LawGuardian.
In two related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminateparental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals, as limited by his brief,from so much of two orders of the Family Court, Kings County (Lim, J.), both entered January30, 2007 (one as to each child), as, after a fact-finding inquest held upon his default in appearingin opposition to the petitions, and after a dispositional hearing, determined that his consent wasnot necessary for the adoption of the subject children, and transferred guardianship and custodyof the subject children to the petitioner St. Vincent's Services, Inc., and the Commissioner ofSocial Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.[*2]
Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as no appeal lies from those portions of the orders which were entered upon thefather's default (see Matter of Geraldine Rose W., 196 AD2d 313 [1994]).
Since the father did not appear at, and his attorney did not participate in, the fact-findinginquest which was held to determine whether his consent was required for the adoption of thesubject children, the provisions of the orders that are the subject of this appeal, and whichdetermined that his consent was not necessary, were entered upon his default and are notappealable (see CPLR 5511; Matter of Jessica Dee D., 6 AD3d 435, 436 [2004]; Matter ofVanessa M., 263 AD2d 542, 543 [1999]; Matter of Geraldine Rose W., 196 AD2d313 [1994]).
In any event, the evidence adduced at the fact-finding inquest demonstrated that the fatherdid not "promptly avail himself of all the possible mechanisms for forming a legal and emotionalbond with his child[ren]' and 'manifest his ability and willingness to assume custody of thechild[ren]' " (Matter of Baby BoyC., 13 AD3d 619, 620 [2004], quoting Matter of Raquel Marie X., 76 NY2d387, 402-403 [1990], cert denied sub nom. Robert C. v Miguel T. 498 US 984 [1990];see Matter of Female Infant F., 191 AD2d 437, 438 [1993]). In addition, the father failedto provide the subject children with financial support (see Domestic Relations Law§ 111 [1] [d]; Matter of FelixM., 9 AD3d 432 [2004]; Matter of Tiffany Lynn G., 259 AD2d 616, 617[1999]).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Crane, Fisher andMcCarthy, JJ., concur.