Summary
The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed an order adjudicating twin children permanently neglected and terminating their father's parental rights. The court held that a permanent-neglect finding did not require an underlying neglect adjudication or dispositional order against the father, and concluded that the agency had made diligent efforts despite his incarceration while he failed to develop a realistic plan for the children's future. The court also upheld the determination that termination and adoption were in the children's best interests.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a permanent-neglect finding under Social Services Law § 384-b requires an underlying neglect adjudication or dispositional order under Family Court Act article 10.
- Whether the agency established by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship, including with an incarcerated parent.
- Whether the father failed to substantially plan for the children's future for the statutory period.
- Whether termination of the father's parental rights was in the children's best interests and whether a suspended judgment or an article 6 settlement permitting post-adoption contact was warranted.
Holdings
- A permanent-neglect finding under Social Services Law § 384-b (7) (a) does not require an underlying neglect adjudication against the parent under Family Court Act article 10 or compliance with an article 10 dispositional order.
- The agency satisfied the threshold diligent-efforts requirement by clear and convincing evidence.
- The father failed to substantially plan for the children's future for the requisite statutory period.
- Termination of the father's parental rights and freeing the children for adoption served their best interests and had a sound and substantial basis in the record.
- A suspended judgment was unwarranted, and an article 6 settlement permitting the father to maintain contact after adoption was unavailable once his parental rights had been terminated.
Key quotations
“Thus, in a permanent neglect proceeding, the petitioner bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence, first, that it made such diligent efforts, and, second, that the respondent failed to plan for the child's future” (*2)
“Upon a finding that a child has been permanently neglected, Family Court's sole concern at a dispositional hearing is the best interests of the child[ren] and there is no presumption that any particular disposition, including the return of [children] to a parent, promotes such interests” (*5)
Factual background
Twin boys, born in 2016, were removed from their home at approximately one month of age and remained in foster care for nearly their entire lives. The father was incarcerated for substantial periods, including throughout the four years preceding the permanent-neglect petition and at the March 2024 fact-finding hearing. Although the agency developed a service plan, communicated available prison services, facilitated possible correspondence and telephone contact, and sought custodial resources identified by the father, he did not complete the required services or develop a realistic plan for the children's future. The children were thriving in a preadoptive foster home with their half siblings, were strongly bonded to that home, expressed a desire to be adopted, and had little recent contact with the father.
Procedural history
The children were removed from their home in December 2016 and placed in foster care. In the related neglect proceeding, Family Court found the mother neglectful and granted the father an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal subject to conditions; the proceeding against the father was later dismissed when the ACD period expired. In June 2023, the Broome County Department of Social Services commenced a permanent-neglect proceeding. After fact-finding and dispositional hearings, Family Court adjudicated the children permanently neglected and terminated the father's parental rights. The Appellate Division affirmed.