| Matter of Michael C. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02228 [82 AD3d 1651] |
| March 25, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Michael C. and Another, Infants. Steuben CountyDepartment of Social Services, Respondent; Michael C., Appellant. |
—[*1] Alan P. Reed, County Attorney, Bath (Jessica M. Drake of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent. Vivian Clara Strache, Attorney for the Children, Bath, for Michael C. and VincentC.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Steuben County (Marianne Furfure, A.J.), enteredJanuary 29, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order,among other things, terminated the parental rights of respondent.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order terminating his parental rights onthe ground of permanent neglect and transferring guardianship and custody of the children topetitioner. The children were placed in foster care after the father left them with a caregiver whowas under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Contrary to the father's contention, petitionerestablished by clear and convincing evidence that the father permanently neglected the childreninasmuch as he "failed substantially and continuously or repeatedly to maintain contact with orplan for the future of the child[ren] although . . . able to do so" (Matter of StarLeslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142 [1984]; see Matter of Whytnei B. [Jeffrey B.], 77 AD3d 1340 [2010]).
We reject the father's further contention that Family Court abused its discretion in refusing toenter a suspended judgment following the dispositional hearing (see Matter of Elijah D. [Allison D.], 74AD3d 1846 [2010]; Matter ofMaryline A., 22 AD3d 227 [2005]). Although the father completed a 28-day inpatientsubstance abuse program, he subsequently failed drug tests and has been continuouslynoncompliant with court-ordered interventions. "[T]he record supports the court's determinationthat any progress made by the father 'was not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of thechild[ren's] unsettled familial status' " (Matter of Tiara B. [Torrence B.], 70 AD3d 1307, 1308 [2010],lv denied 14 NY3d 709 [2010]).[*2]
In addition, we reject the father's contention that hereceived ineffective assistance of counsel. "It is axiomatic that, because the potentialconsequences are so drastic, the Family Court Act affords protections equivalent to theconstitutional standard of effective assistance of counsel afforded defendants in criminalproceedings" (Elijah D., 74 AD3d at 1847 [internal quotation marks omitted]). A parentalleging ineffective assistance of counsel has the burden of demonstrating both that he or she wasdenied meaningful representation and that the deficient representation resulted in actual prejudice(see Matter of James R., 238 AD2d 962 [1997]). Here, the father neither alleged nordemonstrated that he was actually prejudiced by any of counsel's shortcomings. His contentionthat counsel was ineffective "is impermissibly based on speculation, i.e., that favorable evidencecould and should have been offered on his behalf" (Matter of Devonte M.T. [Leroy T.], 79 AD3d 1818, 1819 [2010]).Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Lindley and Gorski, JJ.