| Matter of Prince CC. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07540 [66 AD3d 1167] |
| October 22, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Prince CC. and Others, Children Alleged to beAbandoned. Albany County Department for Children, Youth and Families, Respondent;Terrance CC., Appellant. |
—[*1] Raymond White, Albany County Department for Children, Youth and Families, Albany, forrespondent. Alexander W. Bloomstein, Law Guardian, Hillsdale.
Rose, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Albany County (Maney, J.), enteredSeptember 30, 2008, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b,denied respondent's motion to vacate a default order entered against him terminating his parental rights.
In 2005, petitioner removed respondent's three children from the custody of their mother,who later surrendered her parental rights. In 2006, based upon respondent's lack of contact withthe children, their service providers and petitioner for more than six months, petitionercommenced this proceeding to terminate his parental rights (see Social Services Law§ 384-b [4] [b]). A fact-finding hearing was held and, based on respondent's admissions,Family Court found that he had abandoned the children and scheduled a dispositional hearing.After respondent failed to appear at that hearing and neither the court nor his counsel had heardfrom [*2]him, Family Court issued an order of disposition whichterminated his parental rights, continued the children in foster care and freed them for adoption.Nine months later, respondent moved to vacate that order. Family Court denied his motion,prompting this appeal.
We affirm. To vacate his default, respondent was required to demonstrate both a reasonableexcuse for his failure to appear at the dispositional hearing and a meritorious defense totermination of his parental rights (seeMatter of Womack v Rosario, 50 AD3d 1212, 1213 [2008]; Matter of Taylor v Staples, 33 AD3d1089, 1090 [2006], lv dismissed and denied 8 NY3d 830 [2007]; Matter ofShaune TT., 251 AD2d 758, 758 [1998]). His affidavit in support of the motion, however,contains only unsubstantiated claims that his employer prevented him from attending the hearingand that he has taken steps to gain custody of his children by obtaining full-time employmentand completing treatment for his substance abuse problem. Notably, respondent did not denyhaving been informed of the hearing date or offer any excuse for his failure to contact the court,his counsel, the Law Guardian or petitioner. Nor does he explain why he waited nine months toseek to vacate his default. Finally, given respondent's extended abandonment of the children, hisallegations of recent rehabilitative efforts do not constitute a meritorious defense to thetermination of his parental rights (seeMatter of Gloria Marie S., 55 AD3d 320, 321 [2008], lv dismissed 11 NY3d909 [2009]; Matter of Adam S., 287 AD2d 723, 724 [2001]; Matter of RaymondAnthony A., 192 AD2d 529, 529 [1993], lv dismissed 82 NY2d 706 [1993]).Accordingly, Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent's motion.
Spain, J.P., Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order isaffirmed, without costs.