IN RE: AUNER M. (Anonymous). (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Nassau County (Robin M. Kent, J.), dated February 26, 2025.  The order of fact-finding and disposition, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, inter alia, found that the father permanently neglected the subject child, terminated the father's parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to the Commissioner of the Nassau County Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption.

ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In April 2024, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate the father's parental rights to the subject child, who was born in 2022, on the ground of permanent neglect.  After fact-finding and dispositional hearings, the Family Court found that the petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the father permanently neglected the child, terminated the father's parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.

In a proceeding to terminate parental rights because of permanent neglect, an 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 (see Matter of Ahking–Tyheem C.J. [Letitia M.E.], 238 AD3d 754, 755).  Once an agency demonstrates that it made diligent efforts to encourage and 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 (see Matter of Ryder S.R. [Shaquana R.], 236 AD3d 1045, 1046).  In providing appropriate services, an agency need not guarantee that the parent succeed in overcoming his or her predicaments (see Matter of Benz G. [Nadia B.], 241 AD3d 681, 683).  An agency is deemed to have fulfilled its statutory obligations if it has exercised diligent efforts but is faced with an uncooperative parent (see Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087, 1087).  The credibility findings of the Family Court should be accorded great deference, as it had direct access to the parties and was in the best position to evaluate their testimony, character, and sincerity (see Matter of Derrick D.A. [Shavonna L.L.D.], 134 AD3d 928, 929).

Here, the petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence, that it exercised diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a];  Matter of Storm A.H. [Jahmel W.], 246 AD3d 803, 803).  These efforts included scheduling and facilitating parental access between the father and the child and referring the father to parenting, substance abuse, and anger management classes (see Matter of Carmine A.B. [Nicole B.], 101 AD3d 711).  The petitioner also established that, despite its efforts, the father failed to plan for the child's future (see Matter of Ryder S.R. [Shaquana R.], 236 AD3d at 1046–1047).  Neither the father's partial compliance with services nor his post-petition progress precludes a finding of permanent neglect (see Matter of Mateo M.Q. [Jessica Q.], 185 AD3d 1037, 1038).

Accordingly, the Family Court properly determined that the father permanently neglected the child (see Matter of Christopher C. [Sonia C.], 235 AD3d 865, 867).

At a dispositional hearing, the Family Court's disposition must be made solely on the basis of the best interests of the child (see Family Ct Act § 631;  Matter of Tyjon R. [Felicia R.], 240 AD3d 702, 704).  Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court properly determined that a suspended judgment would not be appropriate in this case since the father did not demonstrate adequate progress in addressing the issues which led to the child's removal and the finding of permanent neglect (see Matter of Asia M.A. [Nia H.], 238 AD3d 1135, 1137).  Here, the record supports the court's determination that it was in the child's best interests to terminate the father's parental rights and transfer guardianship and custody of the child to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption (see Matter of Ahking–Tyheem C.J. [Letitia M.E.], 238 AD3d at 755;  Matter of Christopher C. [Sonia C.], 235 AD3d at 867).

DUFFY, J.P., BARROS, VENTURA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.