| Matter of Naomi G. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06841 [65 AD3d 1344] |
| September 29, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Naomi G., an Infant. Orange County Departmentof Social Services, Respondent; Karlmann G., Appellant, et al.,Respondent. |
—[*1] David Darwin, County Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Peter R. Schwarz of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent. Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rightson the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding anddisposition of the Family Court, Orange County (Klein, J.), dated May 7, 2008, which, afterfact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that he permanently neglected the subject child,terminated his parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to theOrange County Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence, that for a period of more thanone year following the placement of the subject child with an authorized agency, the father failedto substantially and continuously maintain contact with and plan for the future of the child,although physically and financially able to do so, notwithstanding the petitioner's diligent effortsto encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (see Social Services Law §384-b [7] [a]; Matter of Chyanne H., 62 AD3d 876 [2009]; Matter of Shamel H.,61 AD3d 685 [2009]; Matter of Angelo D., 61 AD3d 683 [2009]; Matter ofEgypt K., 59 AD3d 623 [2009]; Matter of "Baby Boy" E., 42 AD3d 536 [2007]).The father, among other things, denied being the child's father on three occasions, continuouslyfailed to visit with the child for at least eight months, from November 14, 2006, to July 18, 2007,and failed to adequately complete various court-ordered treatment programs, including mentalhealth treatment, parenting classes, and a domestic violence program, despite the petitioner'sdiligent efforts to aid him.
Additionally, the Family Court properly determined that the best interests of the child wouldbe served by terminating the father's rights and freeing the child for adoption (see SocialServices Law § 384-b [7] [a]; Matter of Chyanne H., 62 AD3d at 876; Matterof Angelo D., 61 AD3d at 683; Matter [*2]of Egypt K.,59 AD3d at 623). Fisher, J.P., Balkin, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.