| Matter of Zechariah J.(Valrick J.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04250 [84 AD3d 1087] |
| May 17, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Zechariah J., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Orange County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Valrick J.,Appellant. |
—[*1] David Darwin, County Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Peter R. Schwartz of counsel), forrespondent. Jessica Bacal, Katonah, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law 384-b to terminate parental rights on theground of permanent neglect, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition ofthe Family Court, Orange County (Kiedaisch, J.), entered March 19, 2010, which, afterfact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that he permanently neglected the subject child,terminated his parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to theOrange County Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contentions, the Family Court properly found that the agencyexercised diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship and to reunite the father andchild by, among other things, scheduling regular and meaningful visits with the child andreferring the father to programs providing domestic violence counseling and substance abusetreatment (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [f]; Matter of Sheila G., 61NY2d 368, 373 [1984]; Matter of ElijahP. [C.I.P.], 76 AD3d 631 [2010]; Matter of Tynell S., 43 AD3d 1171 [2007]; Matter of Liam Francis P., 26 AD3d385 [2006]). An agency that has exercised diligent efforts but is "faced with anuncooperative parent is deemed to have fulfilled its statutory obligations" (Matter of KahoriEmmanuel A., 287 AD2d 452 [2001]; see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136,144 [1984]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d at 385). Notwithstanding the agency's efforts,the father failed to plan for the future of his child (see Social Services Law § 384-b[7] [c]). "At a minimum, parents must 'take steps to correct the conditions that led to the removalof the child from their home' " (Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d 838, 840 [1986],quoting Matter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d 117, 125 [1979]). "This parental obligationnecessarily includes addressing and overcoming [the] specific personal and familial problemswhich initially endangered or proved harmful to the child, and which may in the future endangeror possibly harm the child" (Matter of Sonia H., 177 AD2d 575, 576 [1991]; seeMatter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d at 125; Matter of Travis Lee G., 169 AD2d 769[1991]).
Here, although the father maintained contact with the child, completed many of the servicesoffered to him, and established suitable housing, he failed to gain insight into the problems thatcaused the [*2]child's removal and were preventing the child'sreturn to his care. The father's assigned caseworkers and a substance abuse counselor testifiedthat the father was uncooperative, hostile, reluctant to undergo treatment, and often missedtreatment sessions, they smelled alcohol on his breath on several occasions while he was enrolledin a substance abuse program, and the father was discharged from his first substance abuseprogram without completing his treatment. Despite a previous order finding that he had neglectedthe child due to ongoing domestic violence between him and the child's mother, the father neveracknowledged his responsibility for the removal of the child and continued to have contact withthe child's mother, whom he claimed was violent and a drug abuser, thus showing his inability orunwillingness to provide a safe home for the child. Indeed, almost a year after the removal of thechild, the father was arrested following a domestic dispute with the mother. Under thesecircumstances, the Family Court correctly found that, despite diligent efforts by the agency, thefather failed to adequately plan for his child's future and, therefore, the child was permanentlyneglected (see Matter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d at 125; Matter of Nicholas R. [Jason S.], 82 AD3d 1526 [2011]; Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d1005, 1006 [2006]; Matter ofJustina Rose D., 28 AD3d 659, 660 [2006]; Matter of Ajuwon H., 18 AD3d 752, 753 [2005]; Matter ofSonia H., 177 AD2d at 576).
Furthermore, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the child's best interest toterminate the father's parental rights (seeMatter of Amber D.C. [Angelica C.], 79 AD3d 865 [2010]; Matter of Justina Rose D., 28 AD3d659 [2006]; Matter of PerryT.K., 16 AD3d 687 [2005]). Termination of parental rights will free the child foradoption, providing him with the opportunity to have a permanent family (see Matter ofMichael B., 80 NY2d 299 [1992]). A suspended judgment was not appropriate in light of thefather's lack of insight into his problems, and his failure to acknowledge and address the primaryissues which led to the child's removal in the first instance (see Matter of Amber D.C. [Angelica C.], 79 AD3d 865 [2010]; Matter of Amy B., 37 AD3d 600[2007]). Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.