| Matter of John M. (Raymond K.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02394 [82 AD3d 1100] |
| March 22, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of John M. Suffolk County Department of SocialServices, Respondent; Raymond K., Appellant. |
—[*1] Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Gary Rosenthal of counsel), forrespondent. Miriam Solon Weintraub, Greenlawn, N.Y., Attorney for the Child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b and Family Court Act article6 to terminate parental rights, the father appeals from (1) a fact-finding order of the FamilyCourt, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated January 21, 2010, which, after a hearing, found thathe had permanently neglected the subject child, and (2) an order of disposition of the same courtentered January 22, 2010, which, after a dispositional hearing, terminated his parental rights andtransferred custody and guardianship of the child to the Suffolk County Department of SocialServices for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as that order was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up forreview on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Suffolk County Department of Social Services (hereinafter DSS) established by clearand convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parentalrelationship by, among other things, scheduling visitation between the father and the subjectchild, providing referrals for substance abuse treatment programs, and warning the father of theconsequences of noncompliance (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [f];Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142 [1984]; Matter of Austin C. [Alicia Y.], 77 AD3d 938 [2010]; Matter of Deajah Shabri T., 44 AD3d1060 [2007]).
The father missed approximately half of the scheduled visits, failed to participate in asubstance abuse treatment program, and continued using illegal drugs. An agency that hasexercised diligent efforts but is faced with an uncooperative parent is deemed to have fulfilled itsstatutory [*2]obligations (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63NY2d at 144; Matter of Tynell S.,43 AD3d 1171 [2007]; Matter of Kahori Emmanuel A., 287 AD2d 452 [2001]).Further, DSS established by clear and convincing evidence that the father permanently neglectedthe child by failing to plan for the child's future during the relevant statutory period,notwithstanding DSS's diligent efforts (see generally Matter of Ariel Kadijah S. [Ryszard B.], 81 AD3d835 [2d Dept 2011]).
After the finding of permanent neglect, the Family Court correctly determined that it was inthe child's best interest to be freed for adoption. Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Belen and Miller, JJ.,concur.