In re Eric G.
Respondent is the father of Eric G. (born in 1992) and Michelle G. (born in 1995). In October 2004, after having been removed from respondent‘s care and placed with their maternal grandmother, Eric and Michelle were deemed neglected and placed in petitioner‘s custody. In March 2006, petitioner commenced this permanent neglect proceeding against respondent seeking an adjudication that Eric and Michelle were permanеntly neglected.1 Following fact-finding and dispositional hearings, Family Court found that respondent failed to plan for the future of the children, adjudicated Eric and Michelle to be permanently neglected and determined that it was in their best interests to terminate respondent‘s parental rights.2 This appeal by respondent ensued.
Initially, we are unpersuaded by respondent‘s contention that petitioner failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to engage in diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen his parental relationship with his children (see
Here, the record establishes that, despite some progress during the two years the children were in petitiоner‘s care, respondent did not successfully complete the recommended services. Rather than taking some responsibility for the removal of the children from his care, respondent claimed bias against him on the part of the code enforcement officer who condemned his residence, the caseworker, petitioner, the foster parents and Family Court. This attitude often led to respondent being uncooperative with the sеrvice providers and disruptive during visitation with the children. The assigned caseworker testified that respondent did not sufficiently benefit from the services or devise an appropriate plan for the return of the children.
Furthermore, with respect to the condition of his residence, although respondent hаd progressed with the repairs, the service providers testified that, at the time the permanent neglect proceeding was commenced, rеspondent‘s residence was still not suitable for the children‘s return. In view of the totality of circumstances herein, we cannot conclude that Family Court еrred in finding that respondent permanently neglected his children.
Before turning to the dispositional order, we find without merit respondent‘s contention that counsel‘s failure to introduce respondent‘s testimony on the subject of his finances constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Here, counsеl sought to introduce evidence of respondent‘s financial status through other witnesses. Thus, the decision not to have respondent testify can be viewed as a trial strategy or tactic and will not be second-guessed by this Court (see Matter of Christopher W., 42 AD3d 692, 693 [2007]). Moreover, upon our review of this record, we are satisfied that respondent received meaningful repre-
Addressing the dispositional order, we note that the sole criterion to be considered at the dispositional hearing is the best interests of the children (see
Under these circumstances, and given the age of the children, there is inadequate support in the record to establish the need to tеrminate respondent‘s parental rights. Rather, we find that a suspended judgment would more appropriately serve the children‘s best interests (see
Finally, respondent‘s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
Mercure, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and facts, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as terminated respondent‘s parental rights; matter remitted to the Family Court of St. Lawrence County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court‘s decision; and, as so modified, affirmed.