| Matter of Fatima G. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 05862 [64 AD3d 653] |
| July 14, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Fatima G. Suffolk County Department of SocialServices, Respondent; Marretta G., Respondent; John G., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In theMatter of Illini G. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Marretta G.,Respondent; John G., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Jami G. Suffolk CountyDepartment of Social Services, Respondent; Marretta G., Respondent; John G., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Kadijah G. Suffolk County Department of Social Services,Respondent; Marretta G., Respondent; John G., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 4.) In the Matter ofKhiliil G. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Marretta G., Respondent;John G., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 5.) |
—[*1] Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Center Islip, N.Y. (Gary Rosenthal of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent. Robert C. Mitchell, Center Islip, N.Y. (Diana B. Groome of counsel), attorney for the [*2]children.
In five related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminateparental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals, as limited by his brief,from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County(Freundlich, J.), entered July 15, 2008, as, upon a decision dated July 7, 2008, and afterfact-finding and dispositional hearings, terminated his parental rights and transferred custody andguardianship of the subject children to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from,without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearingestablished, by the requisite clear and convincing standard of proof, that he permanentlyneglected his children by continuing to abuse drugs following the children's removal from hiscustody and by failing to complete, inter alia, the court mandated drug treatment program(see Social Services Law § 384-b; see Matter of Jordan F. v Bradley F., 62 AD3d 698 [2009]; Matter of Egypt K., 59 AD3d 623[2009]; Matter of Christopher A.R.,57 AD3d 789, 790 [2008]; Matter of Laura F., 48 AD3d 812 [2008]; Matter of Sarah JeanR., 290 AD2d 511, 512 [2002]). Despite the diligent efforts of the Suffolk CountyDepartment of Social Services to help reunite the family, the father refused to address his drugabuse and cooperate with rehabilitation programs. Thus, the father failed to plan for hischildren's return (see Matter of JordanF. v Bradley F., 62 AD3d 698 [2009]; Matter of Egypt K., 59 AD3d 623 [2009]; Matter ofChristopher A.R., 57 AD3d at 790; Matter of Laura F., 48 AD3d 812 [2008]; Matter of Sarah JeanR., 290 AD2d 511, 512 [2002]). The best interests of the children were served byterminating the father's parental rights and freeing the children for adoption (see Matter of Jordan F. v Bradley F.,62 AD3d 698 [2009]; Matter ofEgypt K., 59 AD3d 623 [2009]; Matter of David O.C., 57 AD3d 775, 776 [2008]; Matter of Jamaorqui R.B., 56 AD3d465, 466 [2008]).
The father's remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Balkin andLeventhal, JJ., concur.