| Matter of Shamika K.L.N. (Melvin S.L.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08316 [101 AD3d 729] |
| December 5, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Shamika K.L.N., an Infant. Community Counselingand Mediation, Respondent; Melvin S.L., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) Inthe Matter of Sh'Kenya C.L.N., an Infant. Community Counseling and Mediation, Respondent;Melvin S.L., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Shalaun D.L.N.,an Infant. Community Counseling and Mediation, Respondent; Melvin S.L., Appellant, et al.,Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.) |
—[*1] Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel),for petitioner-respondent. The Law Offices of Kraus, Diamond & Fee, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Elizabeth J. Fee ofcounsel), attorney for the children.
In three related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminateparental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, Melvin S.L. appeals from three orders offact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Beckoff, J.) (one as to eachchild), all dated February 3, 2011, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found thathe permanently neglected the subject children, terminated his parental rights, and committedcustody and guardianship of the subject children to the petitioner, Community Counseling andMediation, and to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purposesof adoption.
Ordered that the appeals from so much of the two orders of fact-finding and disposition datedFebruary 3, 2011, as terminated the father's parental rights pertaining to the children Sh'KenyaC.L.N. and Shalaun D.L.N., respectively, are dismissed as academic, without [*2]costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the two orders of fact-finding and disposition dated February 3, 2011, as toSh'Kenya C.L.N. and Shalaun D.L.N., respectively, are affirmed insofar as reviewed, withoutcosts or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition dated February 3, 2011, as to ShamikaK.L.N. is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner filed three petitions against the father in August 2008, one for each child,alleging, inter alia, that he had permanently neglected the subject children: Shamika K.L.N., bornin 1995 (now 17 years old); Sh'Kenya C.L.N., born in 1994 (now 18 years old); and ShalaunD.L.N., born in 1993 (now 19 years old). The appeal from so much of the two orders offact-finding and disposition dated February 3, 2011, as terminated the father's parental rights asto Sh'Kenya C.L.N. and Shalaun D.L.N., respectively, must be dismissed as academic since thosechildren have reached the age of 18 (seeMatter of Teshana Tracey T. [Janet T.], 71 AD3d 1032, 1033 [2010]; Matter ofFrancisco Anthony C.F., 305 AD2d 410, 411 [2003]). Nevertheless, the neglect findingsagainst the father regarding these children are not academic, since an adjudication of neglectand/or derivative neglect constitutes " 'a permanent and significant stigma which might indirectlyaffect the appellant's status in future proceedings' " (Matter of Najad D. [Kiswana M.], 99 AD3d 707, 708 [2012],quoting Matter of Ifeiye O., 53AD3d 501, 501-502 [2008]).
Contrary to the father's contentions, the Family Court properly found that he permanentlyneglected the children. The petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that it madediligent efforts to assist the father in planning for the children's future by, among other things,repeatedly referring the father to individual counseling and anger management programs,advising him of the need to attend and complete the programs, and assisting him with housing(see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142-143 [1984]; Matter of Dileina M.F. [Rosa F.], 88AD3d 998, 999 [2011]; Matter ofBeyonce H. [Baranaca H.], 85 AD3d 1168 [2011]; Matter of Teshana Tracey T.[Janet T.], 71 AD3d at 1033).
Notwithstanding the petitioner's efforts, the father failed to plan for the future of the children(see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [c]). "At a minimum, parents must take stepsto correct the conditions that led to the removal of the child from their home" (Matter of Zechariah J.[Valrick J.], 84AD3d 1087, 1087-1088 [2011], cert denied sub nom. Valrick J. v Orange County SocialServices, 568 US —, 133 SCt 239 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here,although the father completed some of the service programs offered to him, he failed to gaininsight into the problems that were preventing the children's return to his care. The testimony andevidence showed that the father was uncooperative, hostile, and unaware of how his actionsaffected his relationship with the children. Moreover, he never acknowledged his responsibilityfor the removal of the children from his care and for their reluctance to have contact with him.Nor did the father obtain adequate housing for the children. Under these circumstances, theFamily Court correctly found that, despite the petitioner's diligent efforts, the father failed toadequately plan for the children's future, and, therefore, they were permanently neglected (seeMatter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d at 1087-1088; Matter of Nicholas R. [Jason S.], 82AD3d 1526, 1528 [2011]; Matter ofJennifer R., 29 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2006]). Furthermore, under the circumstances of thiscase, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the best interest of the child ShamikaK.L.N. for the court to terminate the father's parental rights with respect to her (see Matter ofZechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d at 1087-1088).
While the father's contention that the Family Court improperly admitted into evidence certainrecords from the foster care agency is correct, since there was clear and convincing evidencewithout consideration of these records to support the Family Court's determination, any error intheir admission was harmless (see CPLR 2002; Matter of Lameek L., 226 AD2d464, 465 [1996]; Matter of John F., 221 AD2d 858, 861-862 [1995]; see also Matter of Lane v Lane, 68AD3d 995, 998 [2009]).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo, Sgroi andMiller, JJ., concur.