Matter of Aaron P.
2009 NY Slip Op 02678 [61 AD3d 448]
April 7, 2009
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 10, 2009


In the Matter of Aaron P. and Another, Infants. Juan C.P.,Appellant; Graham-Windham, Respondent.

[*1]Robin Steinberg, The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (Gertrude Strassburger of counsel), forappellant.

Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for respondent.

Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Marcia Egger of counsel), LawGuardian.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on orabout November 21, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs,determined that respondent father's consent was not required for the adoption of the subjectchildren and committed custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and theCommissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, withoutcosts.

Because respondent did not maintain "substantial and continuous or repeated contact" withthe children, his consent to their adoption was not required (Domestic Relations Law §111 [1] [d]). Respondent's admission that he made no child support payments during hisincarceration from 1997 to 2002 is fatal to his claim of being a "consent father," as hisincarceration did not "absolve him of his responsibility to support and maintain regularcommunication with the children" (Matter of Sharissa G., 51 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2008]; see Matterof Jonathan Logan P., 309 AD2d 576 [2003]). Moreover, the record shows significantperiods during which respondent failed to contribute support payments "of a fair and reasonablesum" when not incarcerated (Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d] [i]). Additionally,respondent failed to make any objective showing of regular communication while incarcerated(Jonathan Logan P., 309 AD2d at 576). Respondent's testimony of regular contact withthe children prior to July 1997 was muddled and largely contradictory. Even crediting thattestimony, under these circumstances, such windows of regular contact did not make up for yearsof absence and failures to communicate (see Matter of Jason Brian S., 303 AD2d 759,760 [2003]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.