| Matter of Peteress Reighly B. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03720 [62 AD3d 695] |
| May 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Peteress Reighly B. Orange County Department ofSocial Services, Respondent; Daniel S., Appellant, et al.,Respondent. |
—[*1] David Darwin, County Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Peter R. Schwarz of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent. Farber, Pappalardo & Carbonari, White Plains, N.Y. (John A. Pappalardo of counsel),attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rightson the ground of abandonment, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and dispositionof the Family Court, Orange County (Klein, J.), dated May 23, 2008, which, after a hearing,found that he abandoned the subject child, terminated his parental rights, and transferred custodyand guardianship rights to the Orange County Department of Social Services for the purpose ofadoption.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
In order to terminate parental rights on the ground of abandonment, it must be established byclear and convincing proof that the parent evinced an intent to forego his or her parental rightsand obligations (see Matter of JeremiahKwimea T., 10 AD3d 691 [2004]). Here, the petitioner established by clear andconvincing evidence that the father evinced an intent to forego his parental rights andobligations. This intent [*2]was manifested by the father's failureto visit and communicate with his child or the petitioner, although able to do so and notprevented or discouraged from doing so, for the six-month period preceding the filing of thetermination petition (see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; [5] [a]). Thepetitioner was not required to show that it made diligent efforts to encourage him to visit and/orcontact the child (see Social Services Law § 384-b [5] [b]). Moreover, the father'ssporadic, insubstantial contacts with the petitioner, and the filing of a custody petition during thesix months preceding the filing of the termination petition, were insufficient to defeat theshowing of abandonment (see Matter ofAnthony T., 35 AD3d 1201 [2006]; Matter of Kerry J., 288 AD2d 221, 221-223[2001]). Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.