Decided and Entered: October 22, 2026

Docket No. B-22287/23|Appeal No. 7344-7344A|Case No. 2025-03228|

Before: Scarpulla, J.P., González, Rodriguez, Rosado, O'Neill Levy, JJ.

[*1]

Orders of fact-finding and dispositions, Family Court, Bronx County (E. Grace Park, J.), entered on or about November 14, 2024, which, upon findings of abandonment and permanent neglect by respondent father, terminated his parental rights to the subject children and transferred custody to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of abandonment is supported by clear and convincing evidence that for a period of six months immediately prior to the filing of the petition, between November 2022 and June 2023, the father did not have any contact with the children and had only minimal contact with the agency (Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; [5] [a]; Matter of Pandora S.D. [Isabelle D.], 231 AD3d 575, 575 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 901 [2025]). Although the father sent two text messages to the agency with his contact information and went to a case planning meeting in March 2023 and April 2023, respectively, his attempts to maintain contact "were too sporadic and insubstantial to defeat the finding of abandonment" (Matter of Messiah C.T. [Eusebio C.T.], 180 AD3d 544, 545 [1st Dept 2020]).

The finding of permanent neglect was also supported by clear and convincing evidence (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). The agency met its obligation to make diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship. The agency developed a plan for appropriate services in that it referred the father for drug treatment, mental health treatment, and anger management classes, provided him with a parenting skills class at the agency, scheduled regular visitation and case planning meetings, spoke to him about the importance of engaging in his services, including visiting his children, sent him letters that included his services and referrals, and tried to maintain contact despite his failure to do so (Social Services Law § 384—b [7] [a], [f]; Matter of Antonio James L. [Eric David L.], 156 AD3d 554, 554 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Felicia Malon Rogue J. [Lena J.], 146 AD3d 725, 726 [1st Dept 2017]).

[*2]

Despite the agency's diligent efforts, the father's failure to complete his service plan before the children had been in foster care for at least one year established by clear and convincing evidence that he permanently neglected them (see Matter of Mya Malaysha W. [Debora D.M.], 144 AD3d 569, 570 [1st Dept 2016]). The father's claim that he did not understand his service plan is belied by his testimony which established that he received the agency's referrals, completed parenting classes at the agency, that he could visit the children, and was active in their schools and with their doctors until he stopped "seeing eye to eye with the caseworkers." The father also testified that on March 16, 2023, and March 17, 2023, he went to the agency and told caseworkers that he was not going to participate in any more services including those addressing mental health. His argument that the agency failed to undertake the necessary diligent efforts by not referring him to job training or helping him obtain employment and housing is contrary to his testimony that he did not need or want services after his eviction in 2022 (see Matter of Gloria Melanie S., 47 AD3d 438, 438 [1st Dept 2008]).

The father's testimony further established that he failed to acknowledge the underlying issues that led to the children's removal and refused to take psychiatric medication (see Matter of Alexander R.H. [Renzo N.H.], 201 AD3d 465, 466 [1st Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 903 [2022]; Matter of Shaianna Mae F. [Tsipora S.], 69 AD3d 437, 437 [1st Dept 2010]). To the extent that the father received mental health treatment and parenting classes, there is no evidence that he gained insight or otherwise benefitted from them (see Matter of Julianna Victoria S. [Benny William W.], 89 AD3d 490, 491 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 805 [2012]).

A preponderance of the evidence supports the determination that the children's best interests would be served by terminating the father's parental rights and freeing the children for adoption (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). The children have lived with their foster parents, who are also their maternal grandparents, since placement and have developed "a very loving relationship" with them. The foster parents are also able to tend to the children's special needs and wish to adopt them (see Matter of Carol Anne Marie L. [Melissa L.], 74 AD3d 643, 644 [1st Dept 2010]). Moreover, there was no evidence that the father had any feasible plan to care for the children (see Matter of Olushola W.A., 41 AD3d 179, 180 [1st Dept 2007]).

[*3]

As no objection was made to the agency's witness testifying at the fact-finding hearing or to her basis of knowledge, the issue is not properly before this Court (CPLR 4017; 5501 [a] [3]; see e.g. Matter of Desiree D. [Iris D.], 209 AD3d 547, 548 [1st Dept 2022]). In any event, the fact-finding testimony of the agency's witness was sufficient to sustain the agency's burden of proof because it established that she had personal knowledge of the events that led to the filing of the underlying petitions, and she was well acquainted with the father.

Finally, the father's ineffective counsel claim is unpreserved and unavailing (see Matter of Ethan M. [Miguel M.], 223 AD3d 471, 472 [1st Dept 2024]).

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

ENTERED: October 22, 2026