Gerald G., Respondent-Appellant.  (Appeal No. 1.) v. << (2000)

Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to terminate the parental rights of respondent with respect to three children on the ground of permanent neglect.   Respondent is the biological father of two of the children, Anthony G. and William James G., and is the stepfather or former stepfather of the third, Matthew H. Based on respondent's admission, Family Court determined that respondent had permanently neglected the children, and the court committed their guardianship and custody to petitioner for the purpose of freeing them for adoption.

 Contrary to respondent's contention, the court did not err in determining that respondent permanently neglected Matthew.   Although the court ascertained that Matthew is not respondent's child, the court made clear to respondent that his admission concerned all three children named in the petition.   The court asked respondent if he admitted failing to visit “the kids”, failing to plan for the future of “the children”, and failing to cooperate with petitioner's plan to have “them” returned to respondent.   To all those queries, respondent answered, “Yes.”   Thus, there is no basis on this record to disturb the court's determination with respect to Matthew based on any alleged inadequacy in respondent's admission.

 There is no merit to the contention of respondent that he may not be found to have permanently neglected a child who is not his biological child.   The statutes governing the substantive aspects of permanent neglect proceedings (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [1][b];  [7][a];  see generally, Social Services Law § 371[2], [4-a], [4-b] ), as well as their procedural counterparts (see, Family Ct. Act § 614[1][d];  § 633[a] ), authorize a permanent neglect proceeding against a “parent or custodian” (see generally, Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 380, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139;  Matter of Robin PP., 222 A.D.2d 762, 763, 635 N.Y.S.2d 707).   Under the circumstances, respondent was properly named in the petition as Matthew's custodian (see, Matter of Charlene TT., 217 A.D.2d 274, 275-276, 634 N.Y.S.2d 807 [stepfather];  Matter of Crystal Q., 173 A.D.2d 912, 569 N.Y.S.2d 775, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 855, 573 N.Y.S.2d 645, 578 N.E.2d 443 [stepfather];  Matter of Ursula J., 169 Misc.2d 148, 153, 643 N.Y.S.2d 886 [putative father] ).

The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to enter a suspended judgment (see, Matter of Lauren Annette McL., 270 A.D.2d 102, 705 N.Y.S.2d 38;  Matter of Mark M., 267 A.D.2d 1045, 701 N.Y.S.2d 220;  Matter of Philip D., 266 A.D.2d 909, 698 N.Y.S.2d 139).

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: