| Matter of Emerald L.C. (David C.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08959 [101 AD3d 1679] |
| December 21, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Emerald L.C., an Infant. Chautauqua County Departmentof Social Services, Respondent; David C., Jr., Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.) |
—[*1] Barbara L. Widrig, Mayville, for petitioner-respondent. Robert W. Schnizler, Attorney for the Child, Jamestown, for Emerald L.C.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Chautauqua County (Judith S. Claire, J.), enteredOctober 20, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, amongother things, adjudged that respondent David C., Jr. permanently neglected the subject child, EmeraldL.C. and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child to petitioner.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced these proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law §384-b seeking to terminate the parental rights of respondent father with respect to five of his childrenbased on permanent neglect. In these consolidated appeals, the father appeals from orders thatterminated his parental rights with respect to those children. We note at the outset that the father'scontention that Family Court failed to make the requisite finding that petitioner exercised diligent effortsto reunite him with the subject children is belied by the record.
The father further contends that petitioner failed to exercise diligent efforts to reunite him with thesubject children. Although the father raises that contention for the first time on appeal and thus failed topreserve it for our review (see generallyMatter of Christian A., 6 AD3d 1177, 1177-1178 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 604[2004]), we nevertheless address it because "proof by the child-care agency that it has satisfied itsstatutory obligation is a threshold consideration and a necessary prerequisite to any determination ofpermanent neglect" (Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 385-386 [1984]). We conclude,however, that the father's contention lacks merit. The court properly concluded that there was copiousevidence that petitioner exercised diligent efforts to reunite the family, but the father "refused toacknowledge and treat the underlying sexual abuse problem that led to the child[ren]'s placement infoster care" (Matter of Gloria Melanie S.,47 AD3d 438, 438 [2008]). "Clearly, petitioner was not required to forgo requiring [the father's]participation in a sex offender program or to formulate an alternative plan to accommodate his refusal toadmit his role [*2]in the abuse" (Matter of James X., 37 AD3d 1003, 1006 [2007]).
Finally, inasmuch as the father did not request a suspended judgment, he failed to preserve for ourreview his further contention that the court should have granted that relief (see Matter of Atreyu G. [Jana M.], 91AD3d 1342, 1343 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 801 [2012]). Present—Smith, J.P.,Peradotto, Lindley, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.