| Matter of Kevin L. (Jose L.L.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00093 [102 AD3d 695] |
| January 9, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Kevin L., an Infant. Administration forChildren's Services, Respondent; Jose L.L., Appellant. |
—[*1] Daniel Gartenstein, Hawthorne, N.Y., for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Amy Hausknecht ofcounsel), for appellant.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parentalrights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals from an order offact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (McGowan, J.), enteredJuly 13, 2011, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that hepermanently neglected the subject child, terminated his parental rights, and transferredcustody and guardianship of the child to the New York City Administration forChildren's Services and the New York Foundling Hospital for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court properly found that the NewYork Foundling Hospital (hereinafter the agency) exercised diligent efforts to strengthenhis relationship with his child by, inter alia, facilitating visitation, developing a serviceplan, advising him that he needed to secure adequate housing, and offering housingreferrals (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142 [1984]; Matter of Michael A.B. [RichardA.B.], 98 AD3d 579 [2012]; Matter of Daniel A.G. [Jose Ricardo G.], 78 AD3d 831[2010]; Matter of TeshanaTracey T. [Janet T.], 71 AD3d 1032 [2010]; Matter of Arthur C., 66 AD3d 1009 [2009]). However, thefather refused to accept the agency's assistance and did not acquire appropriate housing.An agency that has exercised diligent efforts but is faced with an uncooperative parent isdeemed to have fulfilled its statutory obligations (see Matter of Star Leslie W.,63 NY2d at 144; Matter ofZechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087 [2011], cert denied sub nom.Valrick J. v Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., 568 US —, 133 S Ct 239[2012]; Matter of John M.[Raymond K.], 82 AD3d 1100 [2011]). Thus, under these circumstances, theFamily Court correctly found that, despite diligent efforts by the agency, the father failedto adequately plan for his child's future and, therefore, permanently neglected the child(see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [c]; Matter of Nathaniel T.,67 NY2d 838, 842 [1986]; Matter of Shamel H., 61 AD3d 685 [2009]; Matter ofTynell S., 43 [*2]AD3d 1171 [2007]).
Additionally, the Family Court properly determined that the best interests of the childwould be served by terminating the father's parental rights and freeing the child foradoption by his foster parent, with whom he had been living for over three years, whichwas substantially all of his life (see Matter of Hadiyyah J.M. [Fatima D.R.], 91 AD3d 874[2012]; Matter of Zechariah J.[Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087 [2011]; Matter of Daevon Lamar P., 48 AD3d 469 [2008]). Mastro,J.P., Rivera, Dickerson and Lott, JJ., concur.