IN RE: NITTHANEAN R. (2018)

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan Knipps, J.), entered on or about January 7, 2016, which denied the father's motion to vacate destitute child findings concerning subject children Natalia N.R. and Nitthanean R., unanimously affirmed, without costs.  Appeal from order, same court and Judge, entered on or about July 6, 2016, which, after a hearing, dismissed the father's petitions for custody, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

The father did not show good cause to vacate the destitute child findings on ground he was not served with notice of the underlying proceedings.  Administration for Children's Services (ACS) made the requisite reasonable efforts to locate him (see Family Ct. Act § 1092[a][2][iii] ), and the father identifies no further efforts ACS could have made.  He was not listed on the children's birth certificates, an inquiry was made to the Putative Father Registry, which responded that no man was listed on the registry for these children, and Family Court did not rule on the destitute child petitions until that response was received.  Moreover, the father did not request the paternity testing that established he was the children's father until well after ACS filed the petitions commencing the proceedings.  Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that his identity or whereabouts were known to ACS, for purposes of the petitions originating the destitute child proceedings (see Family Ct. Act § 1093[c][iv], [vi] ).

Nor does ACS's service of paternity petitions and summonses establish such knowledge.  The father concedes receipt of these documents by relying on them now, yet he did not answer them, appear on the return dates, or otherwise communicate with ACS in response, and all were dismissed without prejudice.  His silence in the face of ACS's repeated efforts only supports ACS's conclusion that his whereabouts were, at the relevant time, unknown.  The mother may have identified him as the alleged father in an oral conversation with ACS, but this too falls short (cf.  Social Services Law § 384–c[2][f] ).

The appeal from the order dismissing the father's custody petitions has been rendered moot by the adoption of the children by their respective foster parents (see Matter of Alexis C. [Jacqueline A.], 99 A.D.3d 542, 952 N.Y.S.2d 175 [1st Dept. 2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 856, 2013 WL 105349 [2013] ).  Were we to review the order, we would find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the court's findings that it was in the children's best interests to dismiss the father's custody petitions (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982] );  Matter of Clarence Davion M. [Clarence M.], 124 A.D.3d 469, 1 N.Y.S.3d 85 [1st Dept. 2015] ).  He had virtually no relationship with the children, made no effort to build such relationship even after learning their mother had died, whereas the children's foster parents, their maternal aunt and maternal uncle, had consistently cared for them for years.