| Matter of Whytnei B. (Jeffrey B.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06894 [77 AD3d 1340] |
| October 1, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Whytnei B. and Others, Children Alleged to bePermanently Neglected. Monroe County Department of Human Services, Respondent; Jeffrey B.,Appellant. |
—[*1] William K. Taylor, County Attorney, Rochester (Carol L. Eisenman of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent. Lisa J. Maslow, Attorney for the Children, Rochester, for Whytnei B., Jada B. and JeffreyB.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Patricia E. Gallaher, J.), enteredMarch 10, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, amongother things, terminated respondent's parental rights.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: On appeal from an order terminating his parental rights on the ground of permanentneglect, respondent father contends that petitioner failed to establish that it had exercised diligent effortsto encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship both prior to and during the period of hisincarceration as required by Social Services Law § 384-b (7) (a). We reject that contention."Diligent efforts include reasonable attempts at providing counseling, scheduling regular visitation withthe child[ren], providing services to the parent[ ] to overcome problems that prevent the discharge ofthe child[ren] into [his or her] care, and informing the parent[ ] of [the children's] progress" (Matterof Jessica Lynn W., 244 AD2d 900, 900-901 [1997]; see Social Services Law §384-b [7] [f]). Petitioner is not required, however, to "guarantee that the parent succeed in overcominghis or her predicaments" (Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 385 [1984]; see Matter ofJamie M., 63 NY2d 388, 393 [1984]) but, rather, the parent must "assume a measure of initiativeand responsibility" (Jamie M., 63 NY2d at 393). Here, petitioner established, by the requisiteclear and convincing evidence (see Social Services Law § 384-b [3] [g] [i]), that itfulfilled its duty to exercise diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the father's relationships with hischildren during the relevant time period (see generally Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136,142 [1984]). Petitioner further established that, despite those efforts, the father "failed substantially andcontinuously or repeatedly to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child[ren] although. . . able to do so" (id.; see Matter of Justin Henry B., 21 AD3d 369 [2005]).Present—Smith, J.P., Carni, Sconiers and Pine, JJ.