McGough v. Schenectady County Dept. of Social Services

• Decision Date: 16 December 1999
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,662 In the Matter of Charles McGOUGH, Appellant, v. SCHENECTADY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 149

701 N.Y.S.2d 149

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,662

In the Matter of Charles McGOUGH, Appellant, v. SCHENECTADY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent.

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

Dec. 16, 1999.

Spring & Raghavan LLP (Latha Raghavan of counsel), Albany, for appellant.

Thomas W. Hefferon, Department of Social Services, Schenectady, for respondent.

Robert B. Augspurger, Law Guardian, Schenectady, for Rashawn McGough.

Before: MERCURE, J.P., CREW III, PETERS, CARPINELLO and GRAFFEO, JJ.

PETERS, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Griset, J.), entered June 9, 1998, which, inter alia, dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for custody of his child.

On February 11, 1992, Wanda Drummond gave birth to a child named on the birth certificate as Rashawn Lammar Drummond. Petitioner, 62 years old at the time, was not listed as the father on the birth certificate and did not live with Drummond at the time of the birth. On July 15, 1993, the birth certificate was amended, listing petitioner as the father and renaming the child Rashawn Charles McGough.

Petitioner contended that he held himself out to be the child's father from the time of birth as evidenced by his application and ultimate procurement of Social Security and Veteran's benefits for the child. ¹ Petitioner claimed to spend much time with the child and Drummond until September 16, 1993, when the child was removed by respondent and placed in foster care upon allegations of neglect against Drummond. After Drummond admitted to the charges alleged in an abuse/neglect petition, the child was adjudicated to be a neglected child and placed in respondent's custody. Extensions of placement in both March 1994 and March 1995 were granted. Throughout such time, Drummond had visitation with the child and petitioner alleged that he would drive her to visitation and simply view the child from a distance. Petitioner admitted to being aware of all the proceedings involving this child, including Drummond's loss of custody.

Respondent contended that it was not until March 1995 that Drummond revealed petitioner to be the child's father. A caseworker immediately met with him and informed him of the steps he needed to undertake to establish paternity and obtain visitation rights. At that meeting, it is alleged that petitioner expressed no interest in establishing such rights, with his position remaining consistent at the follow-up meeting scheduled for reconsideration. No further contact by either party was made.

On November 11, 1995, respondent filed a permanent neglect petition against Drummond, without giving notice to petitioner, and the child was ultimately adjudicated to be permanently neglected, with guardianship and custody to respondent as of April 25, 1996. While Drummond's appeal of that...