| Matter of Jacelyn TT. (Carlton TT.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00148 [91 AD3d 1059] |
| Jnury 12, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Jacelyn TT., a Child Alleged to be PermanentlyNeglected. Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Carlton TT.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Christine G. Peters, Clinton County Department of Social Services, Plattsburgh, forrespondent. Aaron Turetsky, Keeseville, attorney for the child.
Rose, J. Appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lawliss, J.),entered December 10, 2010, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant toFamily Ct Act article 10-A, to continue placement of the subject child with petitioner, and (2)from two orders of said court, entered March 4, 2011, which granted petitioner's application, in aproceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, to adjudicate the subject child to bepermanently neglected, and terminated respondent's parental rights.
Respondent is the father of Jacelyn TT. (born in 2001), who relocated to Clinton County withher mother and siblings in 2005 while respondent remained in North Carolina. Respondent hadno contact with the child until June 2009, when she was placed in foster care. Petitionercommenced this proceeding in August 2010 to terminate respondent's parental rights based onpermanent neglect. The mother then surrendered her parental rights and Family Court modifiedthe child's permanency goal from reunification to adoption. We affirmed the modification (Matter of Jacelyn TT. [ToniaTT.—Carlton TT.], 80 AD3d 1119 [2011]). Family Court continued thepermanency goal of adoption by an order entered December 10, 2010 and, after a fact-findinghearing, adjudicated the child to be permanently neglected. Respondent's parental rights werethen terminated, and he now appeals.
In order to establish permanent neglect, petitioner was required to prove, by clear andconvincing evidence, that, although able to do so, respondent failed to plan for the future of thechild for a period of one year after the child came into petitioner's custody despite petitioner'sdiligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship (see Social Services Law§ 384-b [7] [a]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142 [1984]; Matter of Tailer Q. [Melody Q.], 86AD3d 673, 674 [2011]). Respondent's contention that he was not offered any services orprovided with any guidance as to how to accomplish the return of the child is belied by therecord. Although respondent continued to reside in North Carolina until after the petition wasfiled, petitioner's caseworker had continuing contact with him by telephone and letters. She keptrespondent informed about the child's progress in school and counseling, scheduled a weeklytime for respondent to call the child, offered assistance for traveling to Clinton County,scheduled visitations when respondent was present in Clinton County and repeatedly advisedrespondent as to the steps he should be taking to be able to have the child returned to his custody.The caseworker recommended that respondent engage in mental health and substance abuseevaluations, parenting classes and domestic violence services, provided him with informationabout available services in North Carolina and encouraged him to move to Clinton County inorder to develop a relationship with the child. She also followed through with family membersthat respondent suggested could assist him in taking care of the child in order to determine theirwillingness to do so. Given the continuing assistance offered to respondent in the form ofvisitation, progress reports and advice on how to resolve the problems preventing return of thechild, there is ample support for Family Court's determination that petitioner made diligentefforts to strengthen and encourage the parent-child relationship (see Social Services Law§ 384-b [7] [f]; Matter of NazelleRR. [Lisa RR.], 85 AD3d 1253, 1254 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 710 [2011]; Matter of Tyler LL. [Deborah KK.], 84AD3d 1465, 1466 [2011]).
The record also contains clear and convincing evidence supporting Family Court's conclusionthat, despite the diligent efforts of petitioner, respondent failed to develop a realistic plan for thechild's future (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [c]; Matter of Nicole K. [Melissa K.], 85AD3d 1231, 1232-1233 [2011]; Matter of Ja'Heem W. [Beronica W.], 80 AD3d 917, 918 [2011]).Petitioner established that respondent routinely failed to participate in the weekly phone call withthe child, missed meetings with the caseworker, did not take advantage of any of the servicesoffered or recommended by petitioner and only visited the child when he was in Clinton Countyfor court appearances. Those visitations were brief, with respondent failing to acknowledge orinteract with the child and often leaving for no apparent reason. The evidence reflects thatrespondent, who had not been employed full time since 1989, had little or no understanding ofthe child's development or needs. Although respondent claimed that his family could assist him,the evidence established that none of the relatives suggested were willing to take on theresponsibility of custody of the child. Nor is counsel's speculation that respondent may have beenilliterate supported by the record and, in any event, "the extreme inadequacy of [a parent's] effortsat maintaining contact with [his or her] child [is not] mitigated [by a parent's] illiteracy"(Matter of Erica C., 257 AD2d 445, 446 [1999]). Respondent makes no argument withrespect to the disposition, and his appeal from the December 2010 permanency order has beenrendered moot by the permanent neglect adjudication (see Matter of Kim OO. v Broome County Dept. of Social Servs., 44AD3d 1164, 1165 [2007]; Matter ofNatasha F., 15 AD3d 788, [*2]789 [2005]).
Peters, J.P., Kavanagh, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal from theorder entered December 10, 2010 is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
Ordered that the orders entered March 4, 2011 are affirmed, without costs.