| Matter of Shamel H. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02785 [61 AD3d 685] |
| April 7, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Shamel H., Also Known as Shamel Sadique H.Episcopal Social Services et al., Respondents; Robert S., Appellant, et al., Respondent.(Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Shavonne H.S., Also Known as Shavonne Tania H.S., AlsoKnown as Shavonne H. Episcopal Social Services et al., Respondents; Robert S., Appellant, etal., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Kristan H., Also Known as Kristan TaquanH. Episcopal Social Services et al., Respondents; Robert S. Appellant, et al., Respondent.(Proceeding No. 3.) |
—[*1] Magovern & Sclafani, New York, N.Y. (Marion C. Perry of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent Episcopal Social Services. Todd D. Kadish, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the children Shamel H., also known as ShamelSadique H., and Shavonne H.S., also known as Shavonne Tania H.S., also known as ShavonneH. Michael A. Fiechter, Bellmore, N.Y., attorney for the child Kristan H., also known asKristan Taquan H.
In related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, inter alia, to terminateparental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals, as limited by his brief,from so much of three orders of disposition (one as to each child) of the Family Court, KingsCounty (Danoff, J.), all entered September 27, 2007, as, after a dispositional hearing, and upon afact-finding order of the same court (Turbow, J.), dated March 31, 2004, made after afact-finding hearing, finding that he had permanently neglected the subject children, in effect,terminated his parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children tothe petitioner and the New York City Administration for Children's Services for the purpose ofadoption. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated March 31, 2004.
Ordered that the orders of disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the presentment agency established that it made diligentefforts to assist him in maintaining contact with his children and planning for their future (see Matter of Tynell S., 43 AD3d1171, 1172 [2007]). These efforts included facilitating visitation, assisting the father inattempting to locate housing, referring him to family and individual counseling, and advisinghim that he must attend the visitation and therapy sessions (see Matter of Kayshawn Raheim E., 56 AD3d 471, 472 [2008],lv denied 12 NY3d 702 [2009] ). Despite these efforts, the father failed to maintaincontact with the children and to plan for their future for a period of more than one year, fromMarch 21, 2001 through March 22, 2002 (see Social Services Law § 384 [b] [7];Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142-143 [1984]; Matter of Hasson B.,219 AD2d 649, 650 [1995]). Following appropriate findings of permanent neglect as to eachof the children, the Family Court properly determined that the termination of the father's parentalrights as to the children, thus freeing them for adoption, was in their best interests (seeFamily Ct Act § 631; Matterof Joquan Jomaine-Anthony V., 39 AD3d 868, 869 [2007]). Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo,Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.