IN RE: MONTRELL A.D. (2018)

Orders, Family Court, Bronx County (Robert D. Hettleman, J.), entered on or about July 24, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, after a hearing, found that respondent father's consent to the subject children's adoption was not required, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence supports the finding that respondent has not maintained the requisite substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the children to require his consent to their adoption (see Domestic Relations Law § 111[1][d] ).  Respondent failed to provide financial support for the children for at least the two years during which the children were in foster care and failed to communicate with the children or petitioner agency on at least a monthly basis (see id.;  Matter of Lynik Jomae E. [Lynik Jomae E.], 112 A.D.3d 513, 976 N.Y.S.2d 389 [1st Dept. 2013], lv dismissed 23 N.Y.3d 1007, 992 N.Y.S.2d 768, 16 N.E.3d 1247 [2014] ).  The court orders suspending visitation, which resulted from his own deliberate conduct, did not absolve respondent of his obligations to maintain contact (see Matter of Lori QQ. v. Jason OO., 118 A.D.3d 1084, 1085, 987 N.Y.S.2d 652 [3d Dept. 2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 909, 2014 WL 4236253 [2014];  Matter of Dominique P., 24 A.D.3d 335, 807 N.Y.S.2d 26 [1st Dept. 2005], lv denied 6 N.Y.3d 712, 816 N.Y.S.2d 747, 849 N.E.2d 970 [2006] ).  The agency was not required to instruct respondent to provide support for his children (see Matter of Savannah Love Joy F. [Andrea D.], 110 A.D.3d 529, 530, 973 N.Y.S.2d 165 [1st Dept. 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 858, 2014 WL 112433 [2014];  Matter of Marc Jaleel G. [Marc E.G.], 74 A.D.3d 689, 690, 905 N.Y.S.2d 160 [1st Dept. 2010] ).  Respondent's unsubstantiated testimony that he gave the children money and toys does not establish that he was a “consistent or reliable source of support” or “that he provided the [children] with financial assistance that was a fair and reasonable amount according to his means” (Matter of Star Natavia B. [Douglas B.], 141 A.D.3d 430, 431, 33 N.Y.S.3d 896 [1st Dept. 2016] ).

Respondent's due process arguments are unavailing in view of the fact that his court-appointed attorneys were relieved due to his own misconduct;  “he effectively exhausted his right to assigned counsel” (see Matter of Rodney W. v. Josephine F., 126 A.D.3d 605, 606, 6 N.Y.S.3d 239 [1st Dept. 2015], lv dismissed 25 N.Y.3d 1187, 16 N.Y.S.3d 46, 37 N.E.3d 103 [2015] ).  Further, Family Court sufficiently advised respondent of the risks of self-representation.

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