| Matter of Xtacys Nayarie M. (Jose Ruben M.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05003 [74 AD3d 970] |
| June 8, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Xtacys Nayarie M., Also Known as Xtacys M., aChild Alleged to be Abandoned. Little Flower Children and Family Services of New York et al.,Respondents; Jose Ruben M., Also Known as Jose M., Appellant. |
—[*1] Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for respondent LittleFlower Children and Family Services of New York. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Louise Feld of counsel), attorneyfor the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate the father'sparental rights on the ground of abandonment, the father appeals from an order of fact-findingand disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J.), dated March 3, 2009, which,after a fact-finding hearing, found that he abandoned the child and terminated his parental rights,and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child to the Commissioner of SocialServices of the City of New York and Little Flower Children and Family Services of New Yorkfor the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the father abandoned thesubject child, by failing to visit or maintain contact with her, or the petitioner, for a six-monthperiod preceding the filing of the petition to terminate his parental rights (see SocialServices Law § 384-b; Matter ofAnnette B., 4 NY3d 509 [2005]). To the extent that there was evidence that the fatherwas in contact with the petitioner during the relevant time frame, the Family Court did not err inholding that such contact was too minimal, sporadic, and insubstantial to defeat the showing ofabandonment (see Matter of DestinyAaliyah K., 62 AD3d 708 [2009]; Matter of Peteress Reighly B., 62 AD3d 695 [2009]).
Moreover, we reject the father's contention that he was prevented or discouraged fromvisiting or contacting the child during the six months preceding the filing of the petition. It wasthe father's obligation to keep in contact with his child, and the petitioner was not required toexercise diligent efforts [*2]to encourage contact between them(see Matter of Gabrielle HH., 1NY3d 549 [2003]).
Finally, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the Family Court to terminatethe father's parental rights without conducting a dispositional hearing (see Matter of TasharaB., 299 AD2d 356 [2002]; Matter of Little Flower Children's Servs. v Clinton TracyM., 222 AD2d 507 [1995]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller and Austin, JJ., concur.