Judson W., Respondent-Appellant. v. <<

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Matter of JAYLYSIA S.-W., Joshua S., Judson W., II, and Rebecca W. Onondaga County Department of Social Services, Petitioner-Respondent; Judson W., Respondent-Appellant.

Decided: April 28, 2006

PRESENT:  PIGOTT, JR., P.J., SCUDDER, KEHOE, PINE, AND HAYES, JJ. Frank H. HiscockLegal Aid Society, Syracuse (Robert P. Rickert of Counsel), for Respondent-Appellant. Anthony P. Rivizzigno, County Attorney, Syracuse (Melissa A. Cielock-Del Guercio of Counsel), for Petitioner-Respondent. Theresa Heath, Law Guardian, Todelo, Ohio, for Jaylysia S.-W., Joshua S., Judson W., II, and Rebecca W.

Family Court properly adjudicated respondent's children to be permanently neglected and terminated respondent's parental rights.   Contrary to respondent's contention, petitioner met its burden of establishing “by clear and convincing evidence that it has fulfilled its statutory duty to exercise diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship and to reunitethe family” (Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 373, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139;  see Social Services Law § 384-b[7][f];  Matter of Gregory B., 74 N.Y.2d 77, 86, 544 N.Y.S.2d 535, 542 N.E.2d 1052).   Inasmuch as respondent was incarcerated and not eligible for parole until 2027, petitioner was not required to provide “services and other assistance ․ so that problems preventing the discharge of the child[ren] from care [could] be resolved or ameliorated” (§ 384-b[7][f][3] ).   In any event, petitioner established that it “explored the planning resources suggested by respondent and kept respondent apprised of the child[ren]'s progress.   Although respondent maintained consistent contact with [petitioner] and [the] child [ren], he failed to plan for the child[ren]'s future in that the resources he proposed ․ were not realistic alternatives to foster care” (Matter of Male C., 22 A.D.3d 250, 250, 802 N.Y.S.2d 35;  see Matter of Danyel Ramona C., 306 A.D.2d 127, 128, 760 N.Y.S.2d 499).   Thus, “given the circumstances, [petitioner] provided what services it could” (Matter of Curtis N., 290 A.D.2d 755, 758, 737 N.Y.S.2d 127, lv. dismissed 97 N.Y.2d 749, 742 N.Y.S.2d 608, 769 N.E.2d 355).

Contrary to respondent's further contention, “the dispositional proceeding was adequate” (Matter of Anthony OO., 258 A.D.2d 788, 790, 685 N.Y.S.2d 494;  see Matter of Kasey Marie M., 292 A.D.2d 190, 191, 738 N.Y.S.2d 346;  cf. Matter of Kelly G., 244 A.D.2d 709, 710, 664 N.Y.S.2d 379).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.