IN RE: AMIYAH C. (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, respondent father appeals from an order that, inter alia, terminated his parental rights with respect to the subject child on the ground of permanent neglect.

Contrary to the father's contention, petitioner established that it exercised diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship, as required by Social Services Law § 384-b (7) (a). “Diligent efforts include reasonable attempts at providing counseling, scheduling regular visitation with the child, providing services to the parent[ ] to overcome problems that prevent the discharge of the child into their care, and informing the parent[ ] of [the] child's progress” (Matter of Jessica Lynn W., 244 A.D.2d 900, 900-901, 665 N.Y.S.2d 205 [4th Dept. 1997]; see § 384-b [7] [f]). Here, petitioner developed a comprehensive service plan for the father, which included mental health treatment, domestic violence services, anger management counseling, substance abuse evaluation, and clinical visitation services. Petitioner also communicated to the father its concern with his continued volatile relationship with the child's mother.

Contrary to the further contention of the father, we conclude that, despite petitioner's diligent efforts, the father failed to plan for the child's future. “ ‘[T]o plan for the future of the child’ shall mean to take such steps as may be necessary to provide an adequate, stable home and parental care for the child” (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [c]). Here, the father failed to complete or make adequate progress in the services that petitioner recommended, including mental health services, and he continued his relationship with the mother (see Matter of Albina H. [John H.], 229 A.D.3d 1169, 1170, 214 N.Y.S.3d 874 [4th Dept. 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 903, 2024 WL 4151604 [2024]). Furthermore, Family Court properly drew the strongest possible negative inference against the father after he failed to testify at the fact-finding hearing (see Matter of Ariana F.F. [Robert E.F.], 202 A.D.3d 1440, 1442, 161 N.Y.S.3d 661 [4th Dept. 2022]).

We reject the father's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Here, we conclude that “the record, viewed in totality, reveals that the father received meaningful representation” (Matter of Carter H. [Seth H.], 191 A.D.3d 1359, 1360, 140 N.Y.S.3d 658 [4th Dept. 2021]; see Matter of Nykira H. [Chellsie B.-M.], 181 A.D.3d 1163, 1165, 121 N.Y.S.3d 453 [4th Dept. 2020]).

The father failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court should have granted a suspended judgment (see Matter of Matilda B. [Gerald B.], 187 A.D.3d 1677, 1679, 132 N.Y.S.3d 227 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 905, 2021 WL 504696 [2021]), and, in any event, a suspended judgment was not warranted under the circumstances (see Matter of Moses K.B. [Ezra B.B.], 239 A.D.3d 1479, 1479-1480, 234 N.Y.S.3d 724 [4th Dept. 2025]; Matter of Mea V. [Brandon V.], 235 A.D.3d 1242, 1243, 226 N.Y.S.3d 804 [4th Dept. 2025]).

We have reviewed the father's remaining contentions and conclude that they lack merit.