Chenango Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. William F. (In re Harmony F.)

Decision Date19 January 2023
Docket Number535375
Citation212 A.D.3d 1028,181 N.Y.S.3d 403
Parties In the MATTER OF HARMONY F., Alleged to be a Permanently Neglected Child. Chenango County Department of Social Services, Respondent; v. William F., Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Lindsay H. Kaplan, Kingston, for appellant.

Zachary Wentworth, County Attorney, Norwich (Jennifer E. Mason of counsel), for respondent.

Lisa K. Miller, McGraw, attorney for the child.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Pritzker, Fisher and McShan, JJ.


McShan, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chenango County (Frank B. Revoir Jr., J.), entered April 1, 2022, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, to adjudicate the subject child to be permanently neglected, and terminated respondent's parental rights.

Respondent is the father of the subject child (born in 2018), who was placed in petitioner's care in January 2019 following respondent's arrest for violating an order of protection in favor of the mother and the child.1 The child has been in the continuous care, custody and guardianship of petitioner since that time. Petitioner thereafter commenced a neglect proceeding against respondent, alleging, among other things, that he had been regularly intoxicated while responsible for the care of the child. In August 2019, following a fact-finding and dispositional hearing, Family Court adjudicated the child to be neglected by respondent. In December 2021, petitioner filed this proceeding alleging that respondent had permanently neglected the child and seeking to terminate his parental rights. In March 2022, Family Court held a fact-finding hearing on the petition. The court took judicial notice of the prior findings from six permanency hearings held over the course of the approximately three years that the child had been in petitioner's custody, including the permanency reports submitted by petitioner, and heard testimony from petitioner's caseworker, respondent and the foster mother. At the conclusion of the hearing, Family Court adjudicated the child to have been permanently neglected by respondent.2 Further, upon its determination that a separate dispositional hearing was unnecessary, Family Court terminated respondent's parental rights and freed the child for adoption. Family Court issued an order to that effect in April 2022, and respondent appeals.

A permanently neglected child is "a child who is in the care of an authorized agency and whose parent ... has failed for a period of either at least one year or [15] out of the most recent [22] months following the date such child came into the care of an authorized agency substantially and continuously or repeatedly to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child, although physically and financially able to do so, notwithstanding the agency's diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship when such efforts will not be detrimental to the best interests of the child" ( Social Services Law § 384–b [7][a] ; see Matter of Leon YY. [Christopher ZZ.], 206 A.D.3d 1093, 1094, 168 N.Y.S.3d 737 [3d Dept. 2022] ; Matter of Jase M. [Holly N.], 190 A.D.3d 1238, 1240, 141 N.Y.S.3d 153 [3d Dept. 2021], lvs denied 37 N.Y.3d 901, 146 N.Y.S.3d 589, 169 N.E.3d 959 [2021]). Thus, where petitioner seeks to terminate parental rights on the basis of permanent neglect, it "must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that it had made practical and reasonable efforts to ameliorate the problems preventing reunification and strengthen the family relationship by such means as assisting the parent with visitation, providing information on the child's progress and development, and offering counseling and other appropriate educational and therapeutic programs and services" ( Matter of Zaiden P. [Ashley Q.], 211 A.D.3d 1348, 1351–52, 180 N.Y.S.3d 661 [3d Dept. 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Chloe B. [Sareena B.], 189 A.D.3d 2011, 2012, 137 N.Y.S.3d 592 [3d Dept. 2020] ; Matter of Arianna K. [Maximus L.], 184 A.D.3d 967, 969, 125 N.Y.S.3d 195 [3d Dept. 2020] ).

Respondent contends that Family Court improperly allowed petitioner to meet its burden by relying on the permanency orders and reports. We disagree. The record contains sufficient evidence, including respondent's own testimony and the testimony of petitioner's caseworker, concerning the services provided by petitioner following the child's removal, and Family Court could properly consider the reports as part of its determination as to petitioner's diligent efforts (see Matter of Walter DD. [Walter TT.], 152 A.D.3d 896, 897–898, 58 N.Y.S.3d 721 [3d Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 905, 2017 WL 5492124 [2017] ; see also Matter of Anthony S., 282 A.D.2d 778, 779, 723 N.Y.S.2d 251 [3d Dept. 2001] ).

In this respect, the record bears out that the child was removed from respondent's care based upon his violation of an order of protection that stemmed from a family offense petition filed by the mother in December 2018, wherein the mother alleged that respondent had consumed alcohol and made threats to take the child from her. The mother further alleged that respondent would drink to the point of intoxication and would then make threatening statements and throw objects at her in the presence of the child. Further, respondent has a prior neglect finding from 2017 based upon an incident involving his use of physical violence against the mother's other child. The various permanency hearing reports prepared by petitioner identified the barriers to reunification as respondent's prior neglect adjudication and his failure to place the child's needs above his, respondent's severe alcoholism, respondent's inadequate housing and means of income and respondent's past domestic violence.

Petitioner's caseworker, who was the fourth such caseworker assigned to respondent's matter, testified to the various services provided to respondent to address the aforementioned concerns, consistent with the information provided in the various permanency reports. Specifically, the caseworker testified that respondent had been provided with parent aide services since the child entered foster care, which entailed education on how to provide for the child's nutritional, dental and medical needs and instructed him on how to handle the child's behaviors, properly secure the child into a car seat and to change diapers. The records reflect that petitioner's caseworkers had consistent contact with respondent during the child's placement and encouraged and instructed him regarding what he needed to do to reunite with the child. The caseworkers also encouraged respondent to abide by court orders, offered referrals to different programs and assisted with applications for public benefits and to obtain employment. As to his substance abuse, respondent was offered numerous services, including inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation, as well as counseling services.

The record also established that, at the time of the hearing, respondent had been incarcerated since March 2021 following a conviction for contempt, having violated, for the third time, an order of protection in favor of the mother.3 To this end, the caseworker noted that, since taking over this matter, she had met with respondent on a monthly basis while he was incarcerated and he was provided with counseling, encouraged to participate in services and instructed on how to care for the child once released. It is further established from the record that regular calls were facilitated between the child and respondent, and respondent would regularly write letters and draw pictures which were provided to the child (see Matter of Brielle UU. [Brandon UU.], 167 A.D.3d 1169, 1171, 91 N.Y.S.3d 517 [3d Dept. 2018] ; Matter of James J. [James K.], 97 A.D.3d 936, 938, 948 N.Y.S.2d 203 [3d Dept. 2012] ). Although the child had not visited respondent while he was incarcerated, respondent had expressed to the foster mother that he did not want the child to visit and see him in that manner. Altogether, we find that the proof submitted at the hearing sufficiently established that petitioner met its threshold burden to demonstrate, "by clear and convincing evidence, that it made diligent efforts to ameliorate the concerns that led to the child's removal and to strengthen the parent-child relationship" ( Matter of Jason O. [Stephanie O.], 188 A.D.3d 1463, 1466, 135 N.Y.S.3d 530 [3d Dept. 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 908, 2021 WL 1134743 [2021] ; see Matter of Walter DD. [Walter TT.], 152 A.D.3d at 897–898, 58 N.Y.S.3d 721 ).

We further conclude that petitioner clearly and convincingly established that respondent "failed to substantially plan for the child[ ]’s future by taking meaningful steps to correct the conditions that led to [the child's] removal" ( Matter of Chloe B. [Sareena B.], 189 A.D.3d at 2013, 137 N.Y.S.3d 592 ; see Social Services Law § 384–b [7][c] ). "To substantially plan, a parent must, at a minimum, take meaningful steps to correct the conditions that led to the child's initial removal. The parent's plan must be realistic and feasible, and his or her good faith effort, alone, is not enough" ( Matter of Jase M. [Holly N.], 190 A.D.3d at 1241, 141 N.Y.S.3d 153 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Makayla I. [Sheena K.], 201 A.D.3d 1145, 1148, 160 N.Y.S.3d 476 [3d Dept. 2022], lvs denied 38 N.Y.3d 903, 166 N.Y.S.3d 622, 623, 186 N.E.3d 1290, 1291 [2022]). "As relevant to whether a parent has so planned, the court may consider the failure of the parent to utilize medical, psychiatric, psychological and other social and rehabilitative services and material resources made available to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Puig v. N.Y.S. Police
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 19, 2023
    ... ... and Contractors, Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Transportation, 211 A.D.3d 1155, 1156, 179 ... ...
  • In re Elaysia GG.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 22, 2023
    ... ... Chenango County Department of Social Services, Respondent; ... 1252, 1253-1254 [3d Dept 2020]). After offering Family Court ... a thin ... A.D.3d at 1298; compare Matter of Harmony F. [William ... F.], 212 A.D.3d 1028, 1033 [3d ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT