Court Opinion

ID: 9819912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:42:16.671854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:33.854894
License: Public Domain

*992Hinds-Radix, J.,
dissents, and votes to reverse the order appealed from, on the facts, and deny the petition to terminate the father’s parental rights, with the following memorandum, in which Barros, J., concurs: A petition to terminate parental rights on the ground of abandonment may be denied where, despite evidence that the parent abandoned the child during the six-month period prior to the filing of the petition, the record nevertheless demonstrates that termination would not be in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Arthur C., 66 AD3d 1009, 1010 [2009]). Here, my colleagues in the majority conclude that the father’s failure to take prompt action to assert paternity after the mother informed him that he might be the child’s father in the six months prior to the filing of the petition constituted abandonment. However, that finding does not mandate granting the petition to terminate parental rights where, as here, new facts arose after the filing of the petition, and after the issuance of the order appealed from, which demonstrate that termination of the father’s parental rights is not in the child’s best interests (see Matter of Arthur C., 66 AD3d at 1010; Matter of Samuel Fabien G., 52 AD3d 713 [2008]).
Once the petition was filed, the father notified the petitioner that his mother and sister were potential resources for the child. He requested a paternity test to determine his paternity, and, after the test was performed, he secured an order of filiation. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the father abandoned the child, terminated his parental rights, and placed the child in the custody of the petitioner “for the purposes of adoption.”
Although the Family Court terminated the father’s parental rights, it did not terminate the mother’s parental rights. Thus, terminating the father’s parental rights did not foster any permanency goals or foster the adoption of the child. The child was ultimately returned to the mother with no legal father.
Moreover, there are no facts in this record which indicate that a relationship between the child and his father will be harmful to the child (see e.g. Matter of Peter GG., 33 AD3d 1104 [2006]; Matter of Michael E., 241 AD2d 635, 638 [1997]). Rather, at the fact-finding hearing, the father testified he was out of jail and drug free for IV2 years. Further, he noted that additional resources were available to him, in that his mother could help should he assume custody. The paternal grandmother testified that the petitioner never contacted her as a potential resource, and she was willing to assist the father in the care of the child, if he were awarded custody. It appears from this record that terminating the father’s parental rights *993would serve no purpose other than to sever any potential ties between the child and his father and paternal kindred.
In view of the foregoing, the petition to terminate the father’s parental rights should be denied.