| Matter of Peter C., Jr. (Peter C.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07040 [88 AD3d 702] |
| October 4, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Peter C., Jr. Suffolk County Department of SocialServices, Respondent; Peter C., Appellant, et al., Respondent. |
—[*1] Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Gary Rosenthal of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent. Myrka A. Gonzalez, Sayville, N.Y., Attorney for the Child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rightson the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding anddisposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated September 20, 2010,which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that he had permanently neglected thesubject child, terminated his parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the childto the Suffolk County Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
To establish permanent neglect, there must be clear and convincing proof that, for a period ofone year following the child's placement with an authorized agency, the parent failed tosubstantially and continuously maintain contact with the child or, alternatively, failed to plan forthe future of the child, although physically and financially able to do so, notwithstanding theagency's diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (see SocialServices Law § 384-b [7]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142-143[1984]). Contrary to the father's contention, the [*2]evidenceadduced at the fact-finding hearing established by the requisite clear and convincing standard ofproof that he permanently neglected his child by continuing to abuse illegal drugs following theremoval of the subject child from his custody. Notwithstanding the persistent efforts of theSuffolk County Department of Social Services to help reunite the family, the father refused tocooperate with all rehabilitation programs, failed to secure financial stability, and tested positivefor illegal drugs on one occasion. By his actions, the father failed to plan for his child's return (see Matter of Jonathan B. [Linda S.],84 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2011]; Matter of John M. [Raymond K.], 82 AD3d 1100 [2011]).
At a dispositional hearing after a finding of permanent neglect, the Family Court must makeits determination based upon the best interests of the child (see Family Ct Act §631). The Family Court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to greatweight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Robbins v Robbins, 48 AD3d 822 [2008]). Here, theFamily Court properly concluded that it was in the child's best interests to terminate the father'sparental rights and free him for adoption by the foster parents. A suspended judgment was notappropriate in light of the father's lack of insight into his problems and his failure to address theprimary issues which led to the child's removal in the first instance (see Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.],84 AD3d 1087, 1088-1089 [2011]; Matter of Amber D.C. [Angelica C.], 79 AD3d 865 [2010]).Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.