IN RE: I.C.D. (2025)

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (David J. Kaplan, J.), entered on or about August 14, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, terminated respondent father's parental rights to the subject child upon a finding of abandonment, and committed the custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of abandonment is supported by clear and convincing evidence because respondent and the agency caseworker's testimony established that respondent did not have any contact with the child or the agency during the relevant six-month period between February 15, 2022 and the filing of the petition on August 19, 2022 (see Social Services Law § 384–b [4][b];  [5][a];  Matter of Pandora S.D. [Isabelle D.], 231 A.D.3d 575, 575, 219 N.Y.S.3d 319 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 43 N.Y.3d 901, 2025 WL 793472 [2025]).  The agency was not required to demonstrate diligent efforts to encourage respondent to maintain contact with the child in order to establish a prima facie case of abandonment, and, in any event, the agency responded appropriately to respondent's inquiries (see Matter of Jackie Ann W. [Leticia Ann W.], 154 A.D.3d 459, 461, 61 N.Y.S.3d 534 [1st Dept. 2017]).

Although respondent communicated with the child during the virtual visit with the mother and sent gifts for the child on another occasion before the underlying termination petition was filed against him, his attempts to maintain contact with the child “were too sporadic and insubstantial to defeat the finding of abandonment” (Matter of Messiah C.T. [Eusebio C.T.], 180 A.D.3d 544, 545, 116 N.Y.S.3d 278 [1st Dept. 2020];  see Matter of “Male” G., 30 A.D.3d 337, 337–338, 818 N.Y.S.2d 500 [1st Dept. 2006], lv denied 7 N.Y.3d 711, 823 N.Y.S.2d 771, 857 N.E.2d 66 [2006]).  Similarly, respondent's custody petitions for the child also do not defeat the finding of abandonment, as they were not filed or pending within the relevant six-month period (see Matter of Thailique Nashean S. [Sean L.], 105 A.D.3d 428, 428, 963 N.Y.S.2d 169 [1st Dept. 2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 858, 2013 WL 2476555 [2013]).

The record shows that, during the relevant period, respondent was aware that the child was placed with the agency, and his failure to maintain contact with the child or the agency constituted a manifestation of intent to forego his parental rights to the child (see Matter of B.W. [N.W.], 214 A.D.3d 425, 426, 184 N.Y.S.3d 342 [1st Dept. 2023], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 915, 2023 WL 3960606 [2023]).  Respondent did not establish that he was unable to maintain contact with the child or the agency because he suffered from a severe hardship that so permeated his life that attempts at communication were not feasible, or that the agency prevented or discouraged him from doing so (see Social Services Law § 384–b[5][a];  Matter of Aryanna W. [Precious W.], 214 A.D.3d 549, 549, 185 N.Y.S.3d 146 [1st Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 901, 2023 WL 5966558 [2023]).