| Matter of Egypt A.A.G. (Kimble G.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05065 [108 AD3d 533] |
| July 3, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Egypt A.A.G. Suffolk County Departmentof Social Services, Respondent; Kimble G., Appellant. |
—[*1] Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet ofcounsel), for respondent. Steven Flaumenhaft, West Sayville, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 and Social Services Law§ 384-b to terminate the father's parental rights on the ground of permanentneglect, the father appeals from (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, SuffolkCounty (Budd, J.), dated March 21, 2012, which, after a hearing, found that hepermanently neglected the subject child, and (2) an order of disposition of the samecourt, also dated March 21, 2012, which, after a hearing, terminated his parental rightsand committed the guardianship and custody of the child to the petitioner for the purposeof adoption.
Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as the fact-finding order was superseded by the order of disposition and isbrought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, 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 diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parentalrelationship" (Matter of WalterD.H. [Zaire L.], 91 AD3d 950, 951 [2012]; see Matter of Luis A.M.C. [Wendy M.], 102 AD3d 780,781 [2013]). According to the statute, planning for the future of the child means takingsuch steps as may be reasonably necessary to provide an adequate, stable home andparental care for the child within a period of time that is reasonable under the financialcircumstances available to the parent (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7][c]). The plan must be realistic and feasible, and good-faith effort shall not, of itself, bedeterminative (see id.). At a minimum, planning for the future of the childrequires the parent to take steps to correct the conditions that led to the child's removalfrom the home (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [c]; Matter ofLuis A.M.C. [Wendy M.], 102 AD3d at 781; Matter of Carmine A.B. [Nicole B.], 101 AD3d 711, 712[2012]; Matter of Jonathan B.[Linda S.], 84 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2011]).
Here, the Family Court properly found that the father permanently neglected thesubject child. The agency established by clear and convincing evidence that it madediligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (see Matter ofLuis A.M.C. [Wendy M.], 102 AD3d at 781; Matter of Christina M.R. [Lynette Cassandra C.], 101 AD3d1021 [2012]). The agency also established by clear and convincing evidence that thefather failed for a period of one year following the child's placement with the agency toplan for the child's future, as he failed to develop a realistic and feasible plan (seeSocial Services Law § 384-b [7] [c]). Further, the father's incarceration did notexcuse him from the planning requirement of the statute (see Matter of Hailey ZZ. [RickyZZ.], 19 NY3d 422, 430-431 [2012]; Matter of Sharon H., 163 AD2d312 [1990]).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Chambersand Austin, JJ., concur.