IN RE: CHIAMAKA B.O. (Anonymous) (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, the father appeals from three orders of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Margaret Morgan, J.) (one as to each child), all dated March 28, 2024.  The orders of fact-finding and disposition, insofar as appealed from, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the father permanently neglected the subject children, terminated his parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject children to the petitioner and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.

ORDERED that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner commenced these proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, inter alia, to terminate the father's parental rights to the subject children on the ground of permanent neglect.  Following a fact-finding hearing, at which the father testified, the Family Court found that the petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the father permanently neglected the children.  After a dispositional hearing, the court concluded that it was in the children's best interests to terminate the father's parental rights and free the children for adoption, terminated the father's parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the children to the petitioner and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.  The father appeals.

Initially, contrary to the contention of the attorney for the children, the father's failure to appear on certain dispositional hearing dates did not constitute a default.  The father's attorney continued to participate in the proceedings on all of the dates on which the father failed to appear (see Matter of Zephaniah Z. [Charlene F.], 220 A.D.3d 800, 801, 197 N.Y.S.3d 591;  Matter of Amira W.H. [Tamara T.H.], 182 A.D.3d 547, 547, 120 N.Y.S.3d 783).

“In a proceeding to terminate parental rights because of permanent neglect, the agency must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it has fulfilled its statutory duty to exercise diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship” (Matter of Orazio R. [Nanci P.], 233 A.D.3d 689, 690, 222 N.Y.S.3d 154 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Alexis M.B. [Jaclyn R.P.], 224 A.D.3d 679, 680, 205 N.Y.S.3d 147).  “Those efforts must include counseling, making suitable arrangements for [parental access], providing assistance to the parents to resolve the problems preventing the child's discharge, and advising the parents of the child's progress and development” (Matter of Alonso S.C.O. [Angela O.M.], 211 A.D.3d 952, 953, 180 N.Y.S.3d 270 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Shimon G. [Batsheva G.], 206 A.D.3d 732, 733, 167 N.Y.S.3d 811).  “Once the agency demonstrates that it made diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship, it bears the burden of proving that, during the relevant period of time, the parent failed to maintain contact with the child or plan for the child's future, although physically and financially able to do so” (Matter of Orazio R. [Nanci P.], 233 A.D.3d at 690, 222 N.Y.S.3d 154 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Alexis M.B. [Jaclyn R.P.], 224 A.D.3d at 680, 205 N.Y.S.3d 147).  “[T]he planning requirement contemplates that the parent shall take such steps as are necessary to provide a home that is adequate and stable, under the financial circumstances existing, within a reasonable period of time” (Matter of Alonso S.C.O. [Angela O.M.], 211 A.D.3d at 953, 180 N.Y.S.3d 270 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Shimon G. [Batsheva G.], 206 A.D.3d at 733, 167 N.Y.S.3d 811).

“[I]n providing appropriate services to a parent, an agency need not guarantee that the parent succeed in overcoming his or her predicaments” (Matter of Alonso S.C.O. [Angela O.M.], 211 A.D.3d at 953–954, 180 N.Y.S.3d 270 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 385, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139).  “Instead, [p]arents must themselves assume a measure of initiative and responsibility;  they have a duty to plan for the future of their child” (Matter of Alonso S.C.O. [Angela O.M.], 211 A.D.3d at 954, 180 N.Y.S.3d 270 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Jamie M., 63 N.Y.2d 388, 393, 482 N.Y.S.2d 461, 472 N.E.2d 311).  Thus, “ ‘[a] parent who has only partially complied with his or her service plan and who has not gained insight into the issues that caused the removal of the child has not planned for the child's future’ ” (Matter of Orazio R. [Nanci P.], 233 A.D.3d at 690, 222 N.Y.S.3d 154, quoting Matter of Shimon G. [Batsheva G.], 206 A.D.3d at 733, 167 N.Y.S.3d 811;  see Matter of Alexis M.B. [Jaclyn R.P.], 224 A.D.3d at 681, 205 N.Y.S.3d 147;  Matter of Navyiah Sarai U. [Erica U.], 211 A.D.3d 959, 961, 180 N.Y.S.3d 259).

Here, the petitioner met its burden of establishing that the father permanently neglected the children (see Matter of Alexis M.B. [Jaclyn R.P.], 224 A.D.3d at 680, 205 N.Y.S.3d 147;  Matter of Navyiah Sarai U. [Erica U.], 211 A.D.3d at 961, 180 N.Y.S.3d 259).  Contrary to the father's contention, the petitioner demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that it made diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship by, inter alia, forming a service plan that served the needs of the father, assisting him in his housing search, scheduling regular parental access between him and the children, and providing him with referrals to programs to complete his service plan (see Matter of Alexis M.B. [Jaclyn R.P.], 224 A.D.3d at 680, 205 N.Y.S.3d 147;  Matter of S.E.M. [Elizabeth A.M.], 213 A.D.3d 667, 668, 182 N.Y.S.3d 258).  The record showed that despite the petitioner's diligent efforts, the father failed to plan for the return of the children since, among other things, he did not complete any required programs but for one, did not gain insight into the issues that led to the children's removal, and did not consistently attend parental access sessions (see Matter of Alexis M.B. [Jaclyn R.P.], 224 A.D.3d at 680, 205 N.Y.S.3d 147;  Matter of S.E.M. [Elizabeth A.M.], 213 A.D.3d at 668, 182 N.Y.S.3d 258).

Alternatively, the father contends that the Family Court should have granted him a suspended judgment.  However, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Mathew B.C. [Sue–Ann L.C.], 200 A.D.3d 689, 690, 154 N.Y.S.3d 868;  Matter of Hope J. [Fatima M.], 191 A.D.3d 673, 674, 137 N.Y.S.3d 743) and, in any event, without merit.  A suspended judgment was not appropriate since 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 (see Matter of Jeremiah W.T. [Shaunta K.J.—William T.], 206 A.D.3d 662, 663, 168 N.Y.S.3d 540;  Matter of Mathew B.C. [Sue–Ann L.C.], 200 A.D.3d at 689, 154 N.Y.S.3d 868).

The father's remaining contention is without merit.

GENOVESI, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, VENTURA and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.