Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Janelle C. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent; Sean R. (Anonymous), appellant, et al, respondent.
Submitted—September 26, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), entered July 26, 2010, as, after a hearing, determined that he is not a person whose consent to adoption is required pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court's determination that the father's consent to the adoption of the subject child was not required was supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Matter of Sharissa G., 51 AD3d 1019). In this respect, the evidence demonstrated that the father never paid support, visited the child only once during the period when he knew of her whereabouts, and failed to take basic steps to locate her after losing track of her whereabouts. In addition, once he learned that the child was in the custody of the Department of Social Services, he left only one voicemail message with a caseworker during a period of approximately seven months. Accordingly, the father failed to meet his burden of establishing that he maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child through the payment of support and either regular visitation or other communication with the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 111[1][d]; Matter of Jaden Dasani–Amru B. [Roy Alphonso B.], 74 AD3d 801, 802; Matter of Jason Brian S., 303 A.D.2d 759; Matter of Kianna C., 292 A.D.2d 380).
The father was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see Matter of Amber Megan D., 54 AD3d 338; Matter of Laura F., 48 AD3d 812; see generally Matter of Shaheen P.J., 29 AD3d 996, 998).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.
SKELOS, J.P., BALKIN, LEVENTHAL and HALL, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2010–08886 (Docket No. A–6331–10)
Decided: October 11, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)