IN RE: KING D.C. (Anonymous). (2023)

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, the father appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Matthew G. Hughes, J.), dated June 30, 2022.  The order of disposition, upon an order of fact-finding of the same court dated December 21, 2021, entered upon the father's failure to appear at a fact-finding hearing, finding that the father permanently neglected the subject children, and after a dispositional hearing, terminated the father's parental rights and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject children to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner commenced these related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate the father's parental rights to the subject children on the ground of permanent neglect.  In an order of fact-finding dated December 21, 2021, entered upon the father's failure to appear at a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found, inter alia, that the father had permanently neglected the children.  Subsequently, in an order of disposition dated June 30, 2022, made after a dispositional hearing at which the father appeared, the court terminated the father's parental rights and transferred guardianship and custody of the children to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.  The father appeals from the order of disposition.

First, although generally an appeal from an order of disposition brings up for review an order of fact-finding (see CPLR 5501[a][1]), here, the father is foreclosed from raising issues related to the fact-finding phase of the proceeding, since a party cannot appeal from an order entered upon default (see id. § 5511;  Matter of Joseph Kenneth B., 47 A.D.3d 809, 809, 850 N.Y.S.2d 543;  Matter of Chavi S., 269 A.D.2d 454, 454, 702 N.Y.S.2d 918;  see also Matter of Corey MM. [Cassandra LL.], 177 A.D.3d 1119, 1120, 113 N.Y.S.3d 372;  Matter of Adele T. [Kassandra T.], 143 A.D.3d 1202, 1203, 40 N.Y.S.3d 251).  However, since the father appeared at the dispositional hearing, this Court may review the issue of whether the Family Court properly terminated his parental rights and freed the children for adoption (see Matter of Serenity C.W. [Antoinette W.], 158 A.D.3d 716, 717, 68 N.Y.S.3d 735).

Here, the evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing supported the Family Court's determination that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate the father's parental rights and free the children for adoption (see Family Ct Act § 631;  Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824;  Matter of Abbygail H.M.G. [Eddie G.], 205 A.D.3d 913, 914, 166 N.Y.S.3d 560).  Giving due deference to the court's credibility findings (see Matter of Jason A. [Maritza L.G.], 177 A.D.3d 968, 969, 111 N.Y.S.3d 197), the father lacked insight into his problems and failed to address the issues that led to the children's removal and the finding of permanent neglect, and a suspended judgment would serve only to prolong the delay of stability and permanence in the children's lives (see Matter of Abbygail H.M.G. [Eddie G.], 205 A.D.3d at 914–915, 166 N.Y.S.3d 560;  Matter of Adam M.D. [Victoria M.C.], 170 A.D.3d 1006, 1007, 94 N.Y.S.3d 860).

CONNOLLY, J.P., GENOVESI, WARHIT and WAN, JJ., concur.