| Matter of Lashawnda G. (Shawn G.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00622 [91 AD3d 1348] |
| January 31, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Lashawnda G., an Infant. Monroe County Departmentof Human Services, Respondent; Shawn G., Appellant. |
[*1]Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (John J. Rivoli, J.), entered December21, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law 384-b. The order, among other things,terminated respondent's parental rights and denied respondent post-termination visitation withthe subject child.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed withoutcosts.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law 384-b, respondentfather appeals from an order that, inter alia, terminated his parental rights with respect to thesubject child. Contrary to the father's contention, Family Court did not err in denying his requestfor post-termination visitation. It is well settled that a parent seeking post-termination visitationmust "establish that such contact would be in the best interests of the child[ ]" (Matter of AndreaE. [Valerie E.], 72 AD3d 1617, 1618 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 703 [2010] [internal quotationmarks omitted]; see Matter of Sean H. [Kiesha H.], 74 AD3d 1837, 1838 [2010], lv denied 15NY3d 708 [2010]; Matter of Malashia B. [Constance B. Carol C.], 71 AD3d 1493, 1495 [2010],lv denied 15 NY3d 701 [2010]). The record establishes that the court reviewed the relevantfactors before determining that post-termination visitation was not in the child's best interests(see Matter of Kahlil S., 35 AD3d 1164, 1166 [2006], lv dismissed 8 NY3d 977 [2007]). Theevidence presented at the hearing established that the father was serving a 50-year to life sentencein state prison, and he admitted that he had a single unsupervised visit with the child in the 18months preceding the filing of the instant petition. His only other visitation during that periodand the pendency of these proceedings occurred when petitioner's employees brought the childfor supervised visitation with the father in jail or in prison. In addition, the child has severemental challenges and becomes agitated while traveling to the prison. Furthermore, the child hasnever resided with the father. "We thus conclude that [the father] 'failed to establish that such[post-termination] contact would [*2]be in the best interests of the child[ ]' " (Malashia B., 71 AD3dat 1495).
The father further contends that the order erroneously fails to include the court'srecommendation that he receive yearly photographs of the child from her foster or adoptiveparents. We note, however, that the court expressly noted that its recommendation was notbinding on petitioner or any foster or adoptive parents. "The role of the judiciary is to give therule or sentence . . . , and thus the courts may not issue judicial decisions that can have noimmediate effect and may never resolve anything" (Cuomo v Long Is. Light. Co., 71 NY2d 349,354 [1988] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally New York Pub. Interest ResearchGroup v Carey, 42 NY2d 527, 529-531 [1977]). Consequently, such a mere "recommendation"would not properly be included in an order. In any event, there is no dispute that therecommendation has in fact been communicated to the child's foster parents. Present Scudder,P.J., Smith, Sconiers, Gorski and Martoche, JJ.