| Matter of Kevin A., Jr. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03165 [61 AD3d 859] |
| April 21, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Kevin A., Jr., Also Known as Kevin A., AlsoKnown as Kevin R., an Infant. SCO Family of Services et al., Respondents; Kevin A., Sr.,Appellant, et al., Respondent. |
—[*1] Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent SCO Family of Services. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Diane Pazar of counsel), attorneyfor the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights,the putative father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding anddisposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Grosevenor, J.), dated January 28, 2008, as, aftera fact-finding hearing, determined, inter alia, that his consent to the subject adoption was notrequired and that he was not entitled to notice of the adoption, and committed the rights ofcustody and guardianship of the subject child to the Commissioner of Social Services of the Cityof New York and the SCO Family of Services for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from,without costs or disbursements.[*2]
The Family Court properly determined that the putativefather's consent was not necessary for the adoption of the subject child. The putative father wasnot entitled to notice of a proceeding under the provisions of Domestic Relations Law §111-a (2), pertaining to adoption proceedings. He was never adjudicated the child's father by anycourt, he was not identified as such on the birth certificate or in a sworn statement by the mother,he never formally acknowledged or filed a notice of intent to claim paternity, his name was notfiled with the putative father registry, and he was not living with the child's mother. In any event,even if he was the father, he failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he maintainedsubstantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child through the payment of support andeither regular visitation or other communication with the child (see Domestic RelationsLaw § 111 [1] [d]; Matter ofHassan Lawrence W., 42 AD3d 573 [2007]). The fact that the putative father had beenincarcerated did not absolve him of his responsibility to support and maintain regularcommunication with the child (seeMatter of Baby Boy C., 13 AD3d 619 [2004]; Matter of Felix M., 9 AD3d 432 [2004]).
The putative father's remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., Florio, Covelloand Dickerson, JJ., concur.