| Matter of Christie A.M. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09457 [57 AD3d 225] |
| December 2, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Christie A.M. and Another, Children Alleged to beAbandoned. Herbert M., Appellant; The Children's Aid Society,Respondent. |
—[*1] Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Hausknecht of counsel), LawGuardian.
Orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen Alpert, J.), entered on or aboutDecember 13, 2007, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, terminating respondent'sparental rights to the subject children after a fact-finding determination of abandonment, andcommitting custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissionerof the Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York for the purpose ofadoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
With respect to the male child, the finding of abandonment is supported by clear andconvincing, indeed undisputed, evidence that during the six-month period immediately precedingthe filing of the petition, respondent, who at all relevant times has been serving a lengthy prisonsentence, had no contact whatsoever with that child. With respect to the female child, while therewas conflicting testimony as to when and how often respondent telephoned her, Family Court,crediting portions of the testimony of both respondent and the first foster parent, found thatrespondent telephoned at most once or twice a week during the first five or six weeks of theabandonment period, for a total of 5 to 10 calls, after which the first foster parent, respondent'saunt, and then her successor, the aunt's daughter, stopped accepting respondent's collect callsfrom prison, and that respondent had no further contact with either the child or the agency duringthe abandonment period. Even if, contrary to Family Court's finding, we were to acceptrespondent's assertion that, unable to make telephone contact with the child, he wrote severalletters to her, any such letter-writing, considered along with the 5 or 10 phone calls, constitutedcontact too sporadic and insubstantial to avoid the presumption of abandonment (see Matterof Kerry J., 288 AD2d 221, 221-222 [2001]). Such letter-writing, however, does underminerespondent's claim that he was unable to contact the child after the foster parents [*2]began refusing his collect phone calls (see Matter of AnthonyM., 195 AD2d 315, 315-316 [1993]).
We have considered respondent's other contentions and find them unavailing.Concur—Tom, J.P., Nardelli, McGuire, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.