| Matter of Kayla S.-G. (David G.) |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01646 [125 AD3d 980] |
| February 25, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Kayla S.-G. Suffolk CountyDepartment of Social Services, Respondent; David G.,Appellant. |
Glenn Gucciardo, Northport, N.Y., for appellant.
Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Christina E. Farrell ofcounsel), for respondent.
Susan Selanikio Linder, West Islip, N.Y., attorney for the child.
Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, SuffolkCounty (David Freundlich, J.), dated October 31, 2013. The order, insofar as appealedfrom, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the father permanentlyneglected the subject child, terminated his parental rights, and transferred guardianshipand custody of the child to the Suffolk County Department of Social Services for thepurpose of adoption.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealedfrom, without costs or disbursements.
The Suffolk County Department of Social Services commenced this proceedingpursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. After fact-finding anddispositional hearings, the Family Court determined that the father had permanentlyneglected the subject child, terminated his parental rights, and transferred guardianshipand custody of the child to the Suffolk County Department of Social Services for thepurpose of adoption. The father appeals.
The Family Court correctly determined that the petitioner demonstrated by clear andconvincing evidence that it had "exercised diligent efforts to strengthen the parentalrelationship" (Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142 [1984]; see Matter of Hailey ZZ. [RickyZZ.], 19 NY3d 422, 429 [2012]; Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299,309 [1992]) and that the father's partial and belated compliance with the service planprovided by the agency was insufficient to preclude a finding of permanent neglect (see Matter of Tarmara F.J. [JaineenJ.], 108 AD3d 543, 544 [2013]; Matter of Jewels E.R. [Julien R.], 104 AD3d 773, 774[2013]; Matter of Hadiyyah J.M.[Fatima D.R.], 91 AD3d 874, 875 [2012]; Matter of Zechariah J. [ValrickJ.], 84 AD3d 1087, 1087-1088 [2011]). In any event, the record did not establish thatthe father had taken steps to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the childfrom his home (see Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d 838, 840 [1986]; Matterof Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d at 1087-1088; Matter of Jonathan B. [LindaS.], 84 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2011]; Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d [*2]1005, 1006 [2006]).
Likewise, the Family Court's determination that it was in the child's best interests toterminate the father's parental rights and free the child for adoption by her foster parentsis supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Hailey ZZ. [RickyZZ.], 19 NY3d at 430; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d at 147-148; Matter of Adams v Administrationfor Children's Services-Queens, 122 AD3d 840 [2014]; Matter of Jordan E.G.L. [ChristinaD.L.], 108 AD3d 546, 547 [2013]). Contrary to the father's contention, asuspended judgment was not warranted, despite the father's recent progress and efforts toavail himself of the services offered to him, because the child has bonded with the fosterparents, who have consistently provided for her special needs (see Matter of Jesse D. [JohnJ.D.], 109 AD3d 990, 991 [2013]; Matter of Jalil U. [Rachel L.-U.], 103 AD3d 658, 659[2013]; see also Matter ofMahaadai D.H. [Rhonda L.H.], 110 AD3d 878, 879 [2013]).
The father's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see FreshPond Rd. Assoc. v Estate of Schacht, 120 AD2d 561 [1986]; Matter of Cohn, 46 AD3d680, 681 [2007]) and, in any event, without merit (see Family Ct Act§§ 262 [a] [iv]; 1089 [b] [2]; Matter of Amanda G., 64 AD3d 595, 596 [2009]; seealso Matter of George "Joey" S., 194 AD2d 328, 329 [1993]). Rivera, J.P., Austin,Roman and Barros, JJ., concur.