IN RE: GABRIEL S. (2025)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

IN RE: GABRIEL S. ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; THOMAS S., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

727 Decided: October 10, 2025

PRESENT: LINDLEY, J.P., CURRAN, OGDEN, GREENWOOD, AND HANNAH, JJ.

CHARLES J. GREENBERG, AMHERST, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. SAM FADUSKI, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. MARY ANNE CONNELL, BUFFALO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this Social Services Law § 384-b proceeding, respondent father appeals from an order that terminated his parental rights with respect to the subject child. We affirm.

Contrary to the father's contention, petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that it made the requisite diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the father's relationship with the child, including during the period of his incarceration (see Matter of Natalee F. [Eric F.], 194 AD3d 1397, 1397 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 911 [2021]; Matter of Nykira H. [Chellsie B.-M.], 181 AD3d 1163, 1164 [4th Dept 2020]; Matter of Callie H. [Taleena W.], 170 AD3d 1612, 1613 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 35 NY3d 905 [2020]). With respect to the period of the father's incarceration, the father's caseworker testified that she sent him monthly letters, which included a toll free phone number and an address where she could be contacted, a list of services, and warnings regarding the possibility of termination of parental rights (see Callie H., 170 AD3d at 1613).

Contrary to the father's further contention, petitioner established that, despite its diligent efforts, the father failed to plan appropriately for the child's future (see id. at 1614). The father failed to comply with services offered to him before his incarceration, and once incarcerated, he failed to communicate with his caseworker (see generally Matter of Shanequia P., 302 AD2d 890, 891 [4th Dept 2003]). We conclude that “there is no evidence that he had a realistic plan to provide an adequate and stable home for the child[ ]” (Natalee F., 194 AD3d at 1398). Finally, we reject the father's contention that his release from prison warrants remittal for a new dispositional hearing (see generally Matter of Jazmine M. [Willie R.], 185 AD3d 1457, 1458 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 902 [2020]; Matter of Alexander M. [Michael A.M.], 106 AD3d 1524, 1525 [4th Dept 2013]).

Entered: October 10, 2025

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network