| Matter of Telsa Z. (Rickey Z.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04684 [74 AD3d 1434] |
| June 3, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Telsa Z. and Another, Children Alleged to beAbused and Neglected. Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Rickey Z.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael J. Hartnett, Clinton County Department of Social Services, Plattsburgh, forrespondent. Cheryl Maxwell, Plattsburgh, attorney for the children.
Spain, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lawliss, J.), enteredAugust 10, 2009, which, among other things, granted petitioner's application, in a proceedingpursuant to Family Ct Act article 10-A, to continue the placement of the subject children.
This Court recently affirmed a 2009 determination by Family Court that respondent hadabused and neglected his two daughters (born in 2000 and 2001) based upon evidence that hehad sexually abused the older child on repeated occasions (71 AD3d 1246 [2010]). FamilyCourt's subsequent dispositional order directed that respondent have no visitation with thechildren. In July 2009, a permanency hearing was held at which respondent registered noobjection to continuing the no visitation dispositional order provided the court did not requirehim to engage in any sexual abuse programs or services, asserting that he should be allowed todecide himself whether he needs services. After the hearing, the court issued a permanency orderwhich continued the placement of the children with petitioner, continued the no visitation orderand modified the permanency plan to provide for, among other things, the filing of a petition for[*2]termination of respondent's parental rights. Respondent nowappeals and we affirm.
Petitioner met its burden in establishing that it exercised reasonable efforts. Respondent,who chose not to testify at the permanency hearing, had testified at the fact-finding hearing anddenied any responsibility for the abuse and neglect of the children, a position he continues tomaintain. He refuses to avail himself of any services offered by petitioner and refuses to signreleases of information. Additionally, Family Court has the authority to modify an existingpermanency goal (see Family Ct Act § 1089 [d] [2] [i]; Matter of Rebecca KK., 55 AD3d984, 986 [2008]) and the record before us provides a sound and substantial basis for thecourt's modification of the permanency goal with respect to respondent (see Matter ofRebecca KK., 55 AD3d at 986; Matter of Haylee RR., 47 AD3d 1093, 1095 [2008]).
We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them meritless.
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.