| Matter of Dallas Keith M. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07668 [55 AD3d 612] |
| October 7, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Dallas Keith M. Dutchess County Department of SocialServices, Respondent; Davonn P., Appellant. |
—[*1] Ronald Wozniak, County Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Richard A. Ott of counsel), forrespondent. Diane P. Foley, Wappingers Falls, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on theground of abandonment, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) ofthe Family Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated July 9, 2007, which, after a hearing, terminatedhis parental rights on the ground of abandonment and committed the guardianship and custody of hisson to the Dutchess County Department of Social Services for the purposes of adoption.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Following a hearing, the Family Court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the fatherfailed to visit or communicate with the child and failed to communicate with the Dutchess CountyDepartment of Social Services (hereinafter the DSS) for a period of six months immediately precedingthe filing of the petition. Accordingly, the Family Court held that the father abandoned the child andterminated his parental rights. We affirm.
The evidence adduced at the hearing established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the [*2]father abandoned his child during the six-month period prior to the filingof the petition (see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; Matter of Sabina Jessica S., 32 AD3d857, 858 [2006]; Matter of SaquanL.E., 19 AD3d 418, 419 [2005]; Matter of Orange County Dept. of Social Servs. [DianeA.], 203 AD2d 367 [1994]). The father did not attempt to contact or visit the child from August2005 to January 2007 and the father's last contact with the DSS was in August 2005. Moreover, thefather failed to adduce evidence sufficient to establish that his failure to contact either the child or theDSS was a result of circumstances which made it impossible for him to do so (see Matter ofAlexander V., 179 AD2d 913 [1992]; Matter of Catholic Child Care Socy. of Diocese ofBrooklyn, 112 AD2d 1039 [1985]).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Lifson, Carni and Eng, JJ.,concur.