IN RE: HANAH A. (Anonymous). (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, the father appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Orange County (Victoria B. Campbell, J.), dated April 15, 2024, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court also dated April 15, 2024.  The order of fact-finding, insofar as appealed from, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the father permanently neglected the subject children.  The order of disposition, insofar as appealed from, upon the order of fact-finding and after a dispositional hearing, terminated the father's parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children to the Orange County Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the order of fact-finding was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order of disposition is 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 on the ground of permanent neglect.  Following a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found, among other things, that the father permanently neglected the subject children.  Following a dispositional hearing, the court, inter alia, terminated the father's parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the children to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.  The father appeals.

“In a proceeding to terminate parental rights on the ground 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 Ella Elizabeth V. [Reginald P.], 234 A.D.3d 703, 704, 223 N.Y.S.3d 709 [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Matter of Navyiah Sarai U. [Erica U.], 211 A.D.3d 959, 960, 180 N.Y.S.3d 259;  see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a]).  “ ‘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, quoting 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 Ella Elizabeth V. [Reginald P.], 234 A.D.3d at 704, 223 N.Y.S.3d 709).  “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 Shimon G. [Batsheva G.], 206 A.D.3d at 733, 167 N.Y.S.3d 811;  see e.g. Matter of Alexis M.B. [Jaclyn R.P.], 224 A.D.3d 679, 681, 205 N.Y.S.3d 147;  Matter of Elizabeth M.G.C. [Maria L.G.C.], 190 A.D.3d 730, 731, 138 N.Y.S.3d 207).

Here, the petitioner met its burden of establishing that the father permanently neglected the children.  Contrary to the father's contention, the petitioner demonstrated that it made diligent efforts to strengthen the father's parental relationship with the children, including attempting to schedule parental access, offering mental health counseling to the father, providing him with monthly updates as to the status of the children, and attempting to schedule meetings to help the father plan for the children's future.  Despite these efforts, the father failed to maintain contact with the children during the relevant time frame and further failed to complete his service plan (see Matter of Alexis M.B. [Jaclyn R.P.], 224 A.D.3d at 681, 205 N.Y.S.3d 147).

“At the dispositional stage of a proceeding to terminate parental rights, the court focuses solely on the best interests of the child, and there is no presumption that those interests will be served best by any particular disposition” (Matter of Orazio R. [Nanci P.], 233 A.D.3d 689, 691, 222 N.Y.S.3d 154, citing Family Ct Act § 631;  see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147–148, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824).  “ ‘The factors to be considered in making the determination include the [parent's] capacity to properly supervise the child, based on current information and the potential threat of future abuse and neglect’ ” (Matter of Orazio R. [Nanci P.], 233 A.D.3d at 691, 222 N.Y.S.3d 154, quoting Matter of William S.L. [Julio A.L.], 195 A.D.3d 839, 843, 149 N.Y.S.3d 542).  “At disposition, ‘[t]here is no presumption that those interests will be served best by a return to the biological parent’ ” (Matter of William S.L. [Julio A.L.], 195 A.D.3d at 843, 149 N.Y.S.3d 542, quoting Matter of Aliah M.J.-N. [Candice J.-Anna J.], 182 A.D.3d 557, 559, 122 N.Y.S.3d 352).

Here, the evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing demonstrated that the father lacked capacity and willingness to properly supervise the children, to communicate with the children or the petitioner, or to resolve the issues that led to the removal of the children five years prior.  Furthermore, the children had been in foster care for five years, the majority of their lives, at the time of the hearing.  Therefore, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the children's best interests to terminate the father's parental rights and free the children for adoption (see Matter of Orazio R. [Nanci P.], 233 A.D.3d at 691, 222 N.Y.S.3d 154).

The father's remaining contentions are without merit.

GENOVESI, J.P., FORD, WAN and LOVE, JJ., concur.