| Matter of Jules S. (Julio S.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04396 [96 AD3d 448] |
| June 7, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Jules S. and Another, Infants. Julio S., Appellant;Catholic Guardian Society and Home Bureau, Respondent. |
—[*1] Magovern & Sclafani, New York (Joanna M. Roberson of counsel), for respondent. Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel P.C., Syosset (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), Attorney forthe child Jules S. Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, Attorney for the child Tatiana S.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Karen I. Lupuloff, J.), entered on or about June 28,2011, which, after a hearing, determined that the consent of respondent father was not requiredfor the placement of his daughter for adoption and, in the alternative, determined that hepermanently neglected the child and terminated his parental rights, and transferred custody andguardianship of the child to petitioner agency for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed,without costs. Order (same court and Judge), entered on or about June 28, 2011, which, after ahearing, determined that although respondent's consent was required for the placement of his sonfor adoption, he permanently neglected the child, and terminated his parental rights, andtransferred custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency for the purpose ofadoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly determined that respondent's consent for the adoption of his daughter wasnot required since the child was born out of wedlock and he failed to pay an appropriate sumtowards her support (Domestic Relations Law § 111; Matter of Maxamillian, 6 AD3d 349 [2004]). As the court furtherfound, in the alternative, clear and convincing evidence established that respondent permanentlyneglected his daughter, as well as his son, for whom his consent was required, since the agencymade diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (Social Services Law§ 384-b [7] [a]), but respondent failed to plan for their future by, inter alia, failing toremain drug free and complete his service plan (see Matter of Robert Calvin R., 59 AD3d 265, 266 [2009]).
Respondent's request for a suspended judgment is improperly raised for the first time on[*2]appeal (see Matter of Matthew Niko M. [Niko M.], 85 AD3d 544 [2011]),and, in any event, is not warranted since the children have been in foster care for several yearsduring which time respondent never completed any of the requirements of his service plan andwas, in fact, incarcerated, demonstrating his failure to plan for their future.
We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.