Case Name: In the Matter of Rodney J.R. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Rodney R., Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-12-03
Citations: 123 A.D.3d 727
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Rodney J.R. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Rodney R., Appellant.
Judges: Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 123
Pages: 727–728

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Rodney J.R. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Rodney R., Appellant.
[998 NYS2d 210]

Opinion:
Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Lillian Wan, J.), dated July 12, 2013. The order, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the father severely abused the subject child, terminated the father's parental rights, and transferred the guardianship and custody of the subject child to Martha Mejia for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly granted the petition of the Administration for Children's Services (hereinafter ACS) for a determination that the subject child is a severely abused child under Social Services Law § 384-b (8), and thereupon to terminate the father's parental rights and free the child for adoption. ACS established the father's severe abuse of the child by providing evidence of his conviction of murder in the second degree for killing the child's mother and his subsequent imprisonment, and reasonable efforts to return the child to the father's home should be excused as being detrimental to the best interests of the child (see Social Services Law § 384-b [8] [a] [in], [iv]; Penal Law § 125.25; Matter of Leonardo V., Jr. [Leonardo V.], 95 AD3d 1343, 1344 [2012]; Matter of Brendan N. [Arthur N.], 79 AD3d 1175, 1177 [2010]; Matter of Jamel B., 47 AD3d 626, 627 [2008]).
Moreover, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in rejecting the father's application for an adjournment pending the outcome of his criminal appeal (see Matter of Samida v Samida, 116 AD3d 779, 780 [2014]; Nieves v Tomonska, 306 AD2d 332 [2003]). "[A]n order terminating parental rights on the ground that such parent was convicted of murdering the other parent may be affirmed notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal challenging such conviction" (Matter of Daltun A.B. [Daniel B.], 103 AD3d 1181, 1181 [2013]; see Matter of Brendan N. [Arthur N.], 79 AD3d 1175, 1177 n 5 [2010]).
Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.