Matter of Norman Christian K. (2009 NY Slip Op 02241)

Matter of Norman Christian K. v Derrick B.

2009 NY Slip Op 02241

Decided on March 24, 2009

Appellate Division, First Department

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on March 24, 2009
Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman, JJ.

141

[*1]In re Norman Christian K., etc., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,

and

Derrick B., Respondent-Appellant, Saint Dominic's Home, Petitioner-Respondent.

Robin S. Steinberg, The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (M. Chris
Fabricant of counsel), for appellant.
Warren & Warren, P.C., Brooklyn (Ira L. Eras of counsel), for
respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Patricia
S. Colella of counsel), Law Guardian.

Resettled order, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or about September 21, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from, determined, after a hearing, that respondent father was not a person whose consent to his child's adoption was required, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent's consent to the adoption of his child was not required since he did not maintain "substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child" (Domestic Relations Law § 111[d][1]). The record shows that respondent failed to provide financial support according to his means while the child was in foster care (see Matter of Margaret Jeanette P., 30 AD3d 359 [2006]; Matter of Christopher Robert T., 303 AD2d 759, 760 [2003] [respondent father's argument that he failed to contribute financial support to his children because he was never ordered to do so by the court was rejected]), and he did not visit his son at least monthly or, as here, when visitation was not possible, communicate regularly with him or his custodian (see Matter of Pedro Jason William M., 45 AD3d 431 ([2007], lv dismissed and denied 10 NY3d 804 [2008]). Accordingly, respondent never acquired a constitutionally protected interest (see Lehr v Robertson, 463 US 248, 262 [1983]). Contrary to respondent's contention, the statute [*2]does not require the agency to encourage an unwed father to perform the acts specified therein (see Domestic Relations Law § 111[1][d]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MARCH 24, 2009

CLERK