| Matter of Luis A.M.C. (Wendy M.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00204 [102 AD3d 780] |
| January 16, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Luis A.M.C., an Infant. Suffolk CountyDepartment of Social Services, Respondent; Wendy M. et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Maryellen McQuade, Central Islip, N.Y., for appellant Luis M. Paul J. Margiotta, Acting County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet ofcounsel), for respondent. Valerie M. Zuckerman, Smithtown, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In two related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b toterminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother and the fatherseparately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order offact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Budd, J.), datedAugust 18, 2011, as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the motherand the father, respectively, permanently neglected the subject child, and upon theirrespective defaults in appearing at the dispositional hearing, terminated their respectiveparental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to the SuffolkCounty Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the appeals from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition asterminated the appellants' respective parental rights, and transferred custody andguardianship of the subject child to the Suffolk County Department of Social Servicesfor the purpose of adoption are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeallies from a portion of an order entered on the default of the appealing party (seeCPLR 5511; Matter ofLeavon Marvin B., 60 AD3d 941 [2009]; Matter of T'Challaarkiesha Janette Jouslin R.-D., 25 AD3d803 [2006]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed,without costs or disbursements.
"To establish permanent neglect, there must be clear and convincing proof that, for aperiod of one year following the child's placement with an authorized agency, the parentfailed to substantially and continuously maintain contact with the child or, alternatively,failed to plan for the future of the child, although physically and financially able to do so,notwithstanding the agency's [*2]diligent efforts toencourage and strengthen the parental relationship" (Matter of Walter D.H. [Zaire L.], 91 AD3d 950, 951[2012]; see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). " 'At a minimum,planning for the future of the child requires the parent to take steps to correct theconditions that led to the child's removal from the home' " (Matter of Jonathan B. [LindaS.], 84 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2011], quoting Matter of David O.C., 57 AD3d 775, 775-776 [2008]).
Here, the Family Court properly found that the mother and the father permanentlyneglected the subject child. The petitioner established by clear and convincing evidencethat it made diligent efforts to assist the mother and the father in planning for the child'sfuture by, among other things, repeatedly referring them to domestic violence counselingand therapy, and advising them that they must attend and complete the court-orderedprograms, and that despite these efforts, the mother and the father failed to plan for thechild's future (see Matter ofTemple S.M. [Tricia M.], 97 AD3d 681 [2012]; Matter of Teshana Tracey T. [JanetT.], 71 AD3d 1032 [2010]; Matter of Tynell S., 43 AD3d 1171, 1173 [2007]; Matter of Joquan Jomaine-AnthonyV., 39 AD3d 868 [2007]; Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d 1005 [2006]; Matter of Justina Rose D., 28AD3d 659 [2006]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.