Matter of Jake W.E. (Jonathan S.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Jake W.E. (Jonathan S.)

132 A.D.3d 990, 19 N.Y.S.3d 70

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 28, 2015·No. 2014-07794·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

[991]*991Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (David Freundlich, J.), dated June 27, 2014. The order, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the father abandoned the subject child, terminated the father’s parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to the Suffolk County Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

To demonstrate that the father abandoned the subject child, the petitioner was required to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he “evince [d] an intent to forego his . . . parental rights and obligations” by failing to visit or communicate with the child or petitioner during the six-month period before the petition was filed (Social Services Law § 384-b [5] [a]; see Matter of Heaven A.A. [Tyrone W.], 130 AD3d 10 [2015]; Matter of Christopher C. [Sherwin C.], 111 AD3d 715 [2013]). “Intent is manifested by the parent[’s] failure to visit the child or communicate with the child or the agency although able to do so and not prevented or discouraged from doing so by the agency” (Matter of Julius P., 63 NY2d 477, 481 [1984]; see Matter of Angela Simone S. [Simone M.], 107 AD3d 901 [2013]; Matter of Jeremiah Kwimea T., 10 AD3d 691, 692 [2004]). Here, the petitioner met this burden. The subject child was born in September 2012, as a result of a single sexual encounter between the father and the mother. The father admitted that, sometime in August 2013, he was advised by the mother that he might be the father. Although the father had sufficient reason to believe that he might be the father, he failed to take any prompt action to assert or determine paternity, including registering as the putative father, requesting DNA testing, visiting the child, or paying support (see Matter of Beverly EE. [Ryan FF.], 88 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2011]; see also Matter of Robert O. v Russell K., 80 NY2d 254, 259 [1992]; Matter of Raquel Marie X., 76 NY2d 387, 402-403 [1990]). The father’s incarceration did not relieve him of his responsibility to maintain contact or communicate with the subject child or agency (see Matter of Jerralynn R. Mc. [Scott Mc.], 114 AD3d 793, 794 [2014]; Matter of Female F., 40 AD3d 993, 994 [2007]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly granted the petition to terminate the father’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment.

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Mastro, J.P., Rivera and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[991]*991Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (David Freundlich, J.), dated June 27, 2014. The order, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the father abandoned the subject child, terminated the father’s parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to the Suffolk County Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

To demonstrate that the father abandoned the subject child, the petitioner was required to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he “evince [d] an intent to forego his . . . parental rights and obligations” by failing to visit or communicate with the child or petitioner during the six-month period before the petition was filed (Social Services Law § 384-b [5] [a]; see Matter of Heaven A.A. [Tyrone W.], 130 AD3d 10 [2015]; Matter of Christopher C. [Sherwin C.], 111 AD3d 715 [2013]). “Intent is manifested by the parent[’s] failure to visit the child or communicate with the child or the agency although able to do so and not prevented or discouraged from doing so by the agency” (Matter of Julius P., 63 NY2d 477, 481 [1984]; see Matter of Angela Simone S. [Simone M.], 107 AD3d 901 [2013]; Matter of Jeremiah Kwimea T., 10 AD3d 691, 692 [2004]). Here, the petitioner met this burden. The subject child was born in September 2012, as a result of a single sexual encounter between the father and the mother. The father admitted that, sometime in August 2013, he was advised by the mother that he might be the father. Although the father had sufficient reason to believe that he might be the father, he failed to take any prompt action to assert or determine paternity, including registering as the putative father, requesting DNA testing, visiting the child, or paying support (see Matter of Beverly EE. [Ryan FF.], 88 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2011]; see also Matter of Robert O. v Russell K., 80 NY2d 254, 259 [1992]; Matter of Raquel Marie X., 76 NY2d 387, 402-403 [1990]). The father’s incarceration did not relieve him of his responsibility to maintain contact or communicate with the subject child or agency (see Matter of Jerralynn R. Mc. [Scott Mc.], 114 AD3d 793, 794 [2014]; Matter of Female F., 40 AD3d 993, 994 [2007]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly granted the petition to terminate the father’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment.

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Mastro, J.P., Rivera and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Matter of Jake W.E. (Jonathan S.), 132 A.D.3d 990, 19 N.Y.S.3d 70 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

132 A.D.3d 990 (Matter of Jake W.E. (Jonathan S.)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related