| Matter of Jewels E.R. (Julien R.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 01558 [104 AD3d 773] |
| March 13, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Jewels E.R. Suffolk County Department ofSocial Services, Respondent; Julien R., Appellant. |
—[*1] Dennis M. Brown, Acting County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet ofcounsel), for respondent. Miriam Solon Weintraub, Greenlawn, N.Y., attorney for the child.
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, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), datedMarch 13, 2012, which, upon a decision of the same court also dated March 13, 2012,made after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, determined that he permanentlyneglected the subject child, terminated his parental rights, and transferred the custody andguardianship of the subject child to the Suffolk County Department of Social Servicesfor the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
The petitioner agency established by clear and convincing evidence that it madediligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the relationship between the father and thesubject child (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7]; Matter of Ailayah ShawnequeL., 40 AD3d 1097, 1097-1098 [2007]; Matter of Darlene L., 38 AD3d 552, 554-555 [2007]; Matter of Justina Rose D., 28AD3d 659, 659-660 [2006]). These efforts included setting up meetings with thefather to review the child's service plan, discussing the importance of compliance,providing referrals to the father for substance abuse counseling and parenting classes,discussing the importance of the father's obtaining suitable income and housing, andscheduling visitation between the father and the child (see Matter of B. Mc. [DawnMc.], 99 AD3d 713, 714 [2012]; Matter of Hadiyyah J.M. [Fatima D.R.], 91 AD3d 874,874-875 [2012]; Matter of Ailayah Shawneque L., 40 AD3d at 1097-1098).Despite these efforts, the father failed to plan for the future of the child (see Matter of Justin I.B. [NatalieB.], 99 AD3d 897, 897 [2012]; Matter of Jonathan B. [Linda S.], 84 AD3d 1078, 1079[2011]; Matter of Malen SansaV. [Nancy J.], 70 AD3d 707, 708 [2010]; Matter of Darlene L., 38AD3d at 555).
Further, the Family Court correctly determined that it would be in the child's best[*2]interests not to enter a suspended judgment, butinstead to terminate the father's parental rights and free the child for adoption by herfoster parents, with whom she had bonded and with whom she had lived for more thanhalf of her life (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; Matter of Walter D.H. [ZaireL.], 91 AD3d 950, 951 [2012]; Matter of Hadiyyah J.M. [Fatima D.R.],91 AD3d at 875; Matter of Sarah Jean R., 290 AD2d 511, 512 [2002]). Underthe circumstances of this case, the father's belated attempts to comply with the agency'sservice plan were insufficient to warrant imposition of a suspended judgment(see Family Ct Act §§ 631 [b]; 633; Matter of Walter D.H.[Zaire L.], 91 AD3d at 951; Matter of Angelica W. [Dorothy W.], 80 AD3d 772, 773[2011]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Dickerson and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.