| Matter of Robert Calvin R. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01286 [59 AD3d 265] |
| February 19, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Robert Calvin R., Jr., a Child Alleged to bePermanently Neglected. Robert R., Appellant; Abbott House,Respondent. |
—[*1] Jeremiah Quinlan, Hastings on Hudson, for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Marcia Egger of counsel), LawGuardian.
Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J.), entered on orabout September 7, 2007, which, revoking a suspended judgment, terminated respondent'sparental rights and committed the child's custody to petitioner and the Commissioner of SocialServices for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court's finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence ofrespondent's failure to plan for the child's future, notwithstanding the petitioning agency'sdiligent efforts (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [f]; see Matter of Lady Justice I., 50 AD3d 425 [2008]; Matter of Gina Rachel L., 44 AD3d367 [2007]). Those efforts included arranging for counseling while respondent was inprison, communicating with his parole officer to ascertain the programs and services offeredthrough parole and requesting additional services consistent with the Family Court's directives,communicating with respondent's drug program, obtaining drug testing results, schedulingbiweekly visitation, meeting and communicating with respondent, and discussing his serviceplan with him. Petitioner was not required to duplicate the parole officer's efforts in addressingrespondent's drug and alcohol problem (see Matter of Mentora Monique B., 44 AD3d 445, 446 [2007]).
Respondent's failure to complete a drug program and attend required meetings supported afinding of permanent neglect (Matter of Dade Wynn F., 291 AD2d 218 [2002], lvdenied 98 NY2d 604 [2002]). The suspended judgment, having already been extended sixmonths, was properly revoked where respondent admittedly failed to comply with its terms (see Matter of Eric Jule C., 39 AD3d346 [2007]; Matter of Bykya Minnie E., 212 AD2d 365 [1995], lv denied 85NY2d 964 [1995]). Respondent had neither seen nor contacted the child for seven months priorto the dispositional hearing, had not contacted the agency during that period, and failed to obtainappropriate housing. Under these circumstances, it was in the child's best interests (Family Ct[*2]Act § 631) to transfer his custody and guardianship tothe agency and free him for adoption by his foster parents, with whom he had been living foryears (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]).Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Catterson and Renwick, JJ.