Court Opinion

ID: 9870971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 20:13:16.909786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:23.615428
License: Public Domain

Hinds-Radix, J.,
dissents, and votes to reverse the orders ap*1071pealed from, on the law, and to dismiss the petitions against the father, with the following memorandum: The father challenges the termination of his parental rights to his four children, based upon a finding of permanent neglect, for failure to plan for the children for more than one year after their placement in foster care. Because I disagree with the conclusion of my colleagues in the majority that the Family Court properly found that the father failed to plan for his children, I respectfully dissent.
According to the petitioner’s case planner, after the children were placed in foster care, the father visited them on a regular basis before his arrest, and completed a parenting skills course. After a conversation with the mother, wherein the mother alleged that the father committed domestic violence against her, the case planner referred the father to individual therapy, without a psychological evaluation to determine whether he suffered from any psychological issues. He was also referred to a domestic violence program. When the father did not attend the domestic violence program because he claimed that it conflicted with his work schedule, he was referred to another domestic violence program in April 2012.
Also in April 2012, the father was arrested in the courthouse based upon the mother’s allegations of domestic violence, and deported to Mexico in June 2012. A petition to terminate his parental rights was filed a month later. The family offense proceeding filed with respect to the mother’s allegations of domestic violence was ultimately dismissed on the merits. At the dispositional hearing relating to the termination of the father’s parental rights, the petitioner took the position that the dismissal of the family offense proceeding was not relevant, because the agency acted in good faith based upon the information available to it.
The father testified that after he was deported to Mexico, he was unable to contact the children because he did not have his own telephone, and when he was able to telephone the foster mother, she would not speak to him, apparently because the foster mother did not speak or understand Spanish, and the eldest child—who was the only one in her household who understood Spanish—refused to act as translator.
The father did speak to the children when his sister had agency visits with them. The father suggested his sister as a potential resource for the children, but she was rejected as a viable resource, because her living situation was deemed unsuitable and she was undocumented, and because of her financial situation.
*1072Prior to his deportation, the father maintained an apartment in Queens, which the case planner attempted to visit on one occasion, but was denied access, apparently because the father was not home. At the time the termination of parental rights petitions against him were filed, he lived in a home in Mexico with multiple bedrooms sufficient to accommodate the children. He supported himself working in construction and as a farmer, and he had enough food and income to support the children. His goal was to obtain custody of the children in Mexico. His home in Mexico passed a home inspection by Mexican authorities.
The mother executed a voluntary surrender of her parental rights, on condition that she have continued contact with the children, which included unsupervised visitation. After the fact-finding and dispositional hearing, the father’s parental rights were terminated based upon permanent neglect.
“[N]eglect may be found only after it is established that the parent has failed substantially and continuously or repeatedly to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child although physically and financially able to do so (Social Services Law, § 384-b, subd 7, par [a]). The requirement is several: the parent must maintain contact with the child and also realistically plan for [his or] her future. A default in performing either may support a finding of permanent neglect” (Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142-143 [1984]).
In this case, the mother’s conduct forced the breakup of the family, and thereafter sabotaged the father’s efforts to plan for the children. The petitioner, acting upon the mother’s charges of domestic violence, which were later dismissed, modified the father’s service plan. The father was unable to complete that service plan, at least in part because he was incarcerated based upon those allegations, and later deported.
The petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the father neglected the children by failing to plan for their future. Rather, the record supports the conclusion that the father planned for the future of the children to the extent that he was physically and financially able to do so (see Matter of Winstoniya D. [Tammi G.], 123 AD3d 705, 706 [2014]). The petitioner’s assertion that it acted in good faith based upon the information available to it was insufficient to meet the petitioner’s burden.
In view of the foregoing, the petitions to terminate the father’s parental rights should have been dismissed.