Decided and Entered: October 15, 2026

Docket No. B-04804-06/22|Appeal No. 7228|Case No. 2025-04275|

Before: Webber, J.P., Friedman, Kapnick, Pitt-Burke, JJ.

[*1]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Ronna Gordon-Galchus, J.), entered on or about July 3, 2025, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent father's parental rights to the child Ak.D.L.M, and committed the custody of the child to the Commissioner of Social Services and petitioner agency for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Judge, entered on or about July 3, 2025, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent father's parental rights to the child Au.D.L.M, and committed the custody of the child to the Commissioner of Social Services and petitioner agency for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Judge, entered on or about July 3, 2025, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent father's parental rights to the child A.U.L, and committed the custody of the child to the Commissioner of Social Services and petitioner agency for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that the father failed to plan for the children's future (see Matter of Alaura C.N. [Iyonna P.], 214 AD3d 539, 539 [1st Dept 2023]). As the record makes clear, the agency took steps to facilitate the father's service plan, which was tailored to his needs. These steps included scheduling regular in-person and virtual visitation; arranging for transportation for the children at the agency's expense to and from visits; and making referrals for services, including mental health, sex offender, and parenting skills programs (id.; Matter of Emily Jane Star R. [Evelyn R.], 117 AD3d 646, 647 [1st Dept 2014]).

Despite the agency's diligent efforts to assist the father in addressing the issues that led to the children's placement, the father failed to visit the children consistently or to complete the services necessary for their return (see Matter of Lenny R., 22 AD3d 240, 241 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 708 [2006]; Matter of Iris Shawntelle Marie C., 22 AD3d 328, 329 [1st Dept 2005]). The father offered no evidence to suggest that the agency was unwilling to pay for him to receive the appropriate services, nor did he present any evidence to suggest that the reason he failed to complete this service plan or any other was due to financial constraints.

[*2]

Because the father failed to testify or to present evidence in his defense, Family Court was entitled to draw the strongest negative inference against him (see Matter of Jayvien E. [Marisol T.], 70 AD3d 430, 437 [1st Dept 2010]). Thus, the record supports the conclusion that the children's interests are best served by terminating the father's parental rights and freeing them for adoption by their long-term foster parents, who are meeting their specific needs and with whom they are well-bonded (see e.g. Matter of Felicia Malon Rogue J. [Lena J.], 146 AD3d 725, 726 [1st Dept 2017]).

We have considered the father's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: October 15, 2026