| Matter of Janelle C. (Sean R.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07214 [88 AD3d 787] |
| October 11, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Janelle C., an Infant. Suffolk County Department ofSocial Services, Respondent; Sean R., Appellant, et al, Respondent. |
—[*1] Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent. Diane B. Groom, Central Islip, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate the mother'sparental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals from so much of an orderof the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), entered July 26, 2010, as, after a hearing,determined that he is not a person whose consent to adoption is required pursuant to DomesticRelations Law § 111.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court's determination that the father's consent to the adoption of the subject childwas not required was supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Matter of Sharissa G., 51 AD3d1019 [2008]). In this respect, the evidence demonstrated that the father never paid support,visited the child only once during the period when he knew of her whereabouts, and failed to takebasic steps to locate her after losing track of her whereabouts. In addition, once he learned thatthe child was in the custody of the Department of Social Services, he left only one voicemailmessage with a caseworker during a period of approximately seven months. Accordingly, thefather failed to meet his burden of establishing that he maintained substantial and continuous orrepeated contact with the child through the payment of support and either regular visitation orother communication with the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d]; Matter of Jaden Dasani-Amru B. [RoyAlphonso B.], 74 AD3d 801, 802 [2010]; Matter of Jason Brian S., 303 AD2d759 [2003]; Matter of Kianna C., 292 AD2d 380 [2002]).
The father was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see Matter of Amber Megan D., 54AD3d 338 [2008]; Matter of LauraF., 48 AD3d 812 [2008]; seegenerally Matter of Shaheen P.J., 29 AD3d 996, 998 [2006]).[*2]
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.