| Matter of Jessica Leslie A. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02778 [61 AD3d 679] |
| April 7, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Jessica Leslie A., Also Known as Jessica A., AlsoKnown as Jessica M., Also Known as Jessica C. Little Flower Children and Family Service etal., Respondents; David A., Appellant. |
—[*1] Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for respondent LittleFlower Children and Family Services. Elliot Green, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, inter alia, to terminateparental rights on the ground of abandonment, the father appeals from an order of disposition ofthe Family Court, Kings County (Danoff, J.), dated May 8, 2008, which, upon a fact-findingorder of the same court dated March 31, 2008, made after a fact-finding hearing, determined thathe abandoned the subject child, terminated his parental rights, and transferred guardianship andcustody of the subject child to Little Flower Children and Family Services and the Commissionerof Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption. The notice of appealfrom the fact-finding order dated March 31, 2008, is deemed to be a notice of appeal from theorder of disposition dated May 8, 2008 (see CPLR 5512 [a]). The appeal brings up forreview the fact-finding order dated March 31, 2008.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.[*2]
The Family Court properly determined that there wasclear and convincing proof that the father abandoned the subject child during the six-monthperiod before the filing of the petition, in view of the total absence of contact between the fatherand the child during that period (see Social Services Law § 384-b [5] [a], [b]; Matter of Jahmir Domevlo J., 8 AD3d280, 280-281 [2004]; Matter of Derrick J., 287 AD2d 503 [2001]). Neither an orderof protection nor the father's incarceration prevented him from otherwise contacting his child orthe petitioner agency by telephone or by letter (see Matter of Adonis Earl S., 14 AD3d 614, 615 [2005]; Matterof Jahmir Domevlo J., 8 AD3d at 281; Matter of Orange County Dept. of Social Servs.[Diane A.], 203 AD2d 367 [1994]). Moreover, the petitioner agency did not prevent ordiscourage contact between the father and the child (see Matter of Derrick J., 287 AD2dat 503-504). Finally, the Family Court properly concluded that it was in the child's best intereststo terminate the father's parental rights (see Matter of Andrew R., 21 AD3d 378 [2005]; Matter of Lamont Dale M., 11 AD3d544 [2004]).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Santucci andDickerson, JJ., concur.