IN RE: N.N. And Another (2026)

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Karen M.C. Cortes, J.), entered on or about November 20, 2023, which, after a fact-finding determination that respondent father permanently neglected the subject children, terminated his parental rights to the children and committed their guardianship and custody to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.  Appeal from fact-finding order, same court and judge, entered on or about March 1, 2023, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as no appeal lies from an order entered on default.

As to the dispositional order, the record supports the determination that termination of the father's parental rights is in the children's best interests (see Matter of Shilloh M.J. [Jamesina M.J.], 183 A.D.3d 540, 541, 123 N.Y.S.3d 132 [1st Dept. 2020]).  The evidence presented at the dispositional hearing established that the children were doing well living with their respective foster parents, with whom they have resided for almost the entirety of their lives, approximately 12 years, and that both children wanted to be adopted by their foster parents, did not feel safe in the father's care, and did not want to see him (see Matter of CaAliyah W–N. A. [Carl A.], 236 A.D.3d 401, 402, 228 N.Y.S.3d 78 [1st Dept. 2025];  Matter of “No Given Name” O. [Adele O.], 209 A.D.3d 443, 443–444, 175 N.Y.S.3d 232 [1st Dept. 2022];  Matter of Anthony R.L.O. [Anthony L.O.], 143 A.D.3d 475, 476, 38 N.Y.S.3d 429 [1st Dept. 2016]).  The father also displayed limited knowledge of the subject child's diagnosed medical condition and was unaware of that child's medical providers (see Matter of Deime Zechariah Luke M. [Sharon Tiffany M.], 112 A.D.3d 535, 537, 978 N.Y.S.2d 125 [1st Dept. 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 863, 2014 WL 1243479 [2014]).

To the extent the father claims that the court should have issued a suspended judgment, there is no basis for such relief, where the father's situation is unlikely to change with a short reprieve, and the children are entitled to permanency in their pre-adoptive foster homes (see Matter of Nautica Skyy W. [Amber NY–Cole W.], 198 A.D.3d 589, 590, 152 N.Y.S.3d 912 [1st Dept. 2021]).

Finally, the father's desire to keep the children together is not a sufficient basis to reverse the disposition under the circumstances.  While generally it may be preferable for siblings to reside together, the rule is not absolute, especially where, as here, the children have lived in separate foster homes for many years (see Matter of Ender M.Z.-P. [Olga Z.], 109 A.D.3d 834, 836, 973 N.Y.S.2d 221 [2d Dept. 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 863, 984 N.Y.S.2d 294, 7 N.E.3d 508 [2014]), and the foster parents are committed to arranging sibling visits for the children to maintain their relationship (see Matter of Joseph P. [Edwin P.], 143 A.D.3d 529, 530, 39 N.Y.S.3d 142 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1110, 45 N.Y.S.3d 353, 68 N.E.3d 79 [2016]).

No appeal lies from the fact-finding order, since the father defaulted at the fact-finding hearing (see Matter of Roberto O. [Lakeysha H.], 151 A.D.3d 525, 525, 53 N.Y.S.3d 831 [1st Dept. 2017];  Matter of Jaquan Tieran B. [Latoya B.], 105 A.D.3d 498, 499, 963 N.Y.S.2d 190 [1st Dept. 2013]).

We have considered the father's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.