In re Kenneth A.
Aрpeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lewis, J.), entered February 10, 1993, which granted petitioner’s applicatiоn, in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, to adjudicate respondent’s children to be permanеntly neglected, and terminated respondent’s parental rights.
The record details the extensive services provided to respondent and the children, born in January 1983 and July 1984, by petitioner from as early as September 1987. Child Protective Services subsequently became involved with this family as a result of a report from the State Central Register for Child Abuse and Maltreatment on February 2, 1988. The report was indicated for inadequate guardianship in March 1988. Other reports were subsequently made and indicatеd against respondent for lack of supervision and inadequate guardianship.
Various preventative services including mental health counseling, homemaker services and day care were provided to this family and, by June 9, 1988, pursuant to written stipulаtion, respondent voluntarily placed the children in the home of the paternal aunt who was later awarded temрorary custody. The children were adjudicated neglected in January 1989 and custody was continued until the aunt voluntarily plaсed the children in foster care in February 1989 due to the deteriorating relationship betweén herself and respondent, as well as the unmanageable behavior of the children.
Pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, petitioner brought a petition requesting guardianship. A permanent neglect peti
On August 31, 1992, the Law Guardian, who had been involved with this family since 1988, petitioned Family Court for an order restoring the matter to the сalendar. This petition was followed by a petition initiated by petitioner, dated September 24, 1992, to revoke the suspеnded judgment. Such matter was restored to the calendar and a hearing was held on November 18 and 19, 1992. In the interim, on September 24, 1992, a temporary order was issued imposing supervised visitation. From September 24, 1992 until the hearing was held, respondent failed tо visit and/or contact the children or anyone else involved in the children’s care.
By order entered February 10, 1993, Family Court found respondent to have permanently neglected the children, revoked the suspended judgment and ordered that his guardianship and custody rights be transferred to petitioner’s Commissioner. Respondent contends that petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the suspended judgment was not complied with. We disagree.
Our review of the record reveals that throughout the years of receiving services, respondent has failed to integrate the tеachings thereof into his emotional framework. It was evident to both Family Court and this Court that the goal of petitioner was tо return the children to respondent and that the agency had worked diligently to accomplish such purpose. Notwithstanding thе provision of a broad array of services, the record reflects that respondent failed to deal effectively with his explosive temper and angry outbursts through available mental health counseling, and continued to project blame on the children, the caseworkers or anyone else who did not agree with him. This pattern reemerged in respondеnt’s failure to contact his children or anyone else involved in their care during the issuance of the temporary ordеr, although seemingly able to do so.
We note that while respondent has attempted to comply with many of the literal provisions of the suspended judgment, testimony adduced at the hearing indicates that despite the efforts of petitioner, respondent is simply not capable of utilizing the services provided for their intended purpose. Respondent admitted that because of events in his own childhood he is unable to give positive expressions of affection to his children and that he has no trust or confidence in the
We find that in light of the record before us, sufficient evidence supports Family Court’s determinаtion that respondent failed to comply with the conditions of the suspended judgment (see, Matter of Grace Q. [Paul Q.],
Mercure, J. P., White, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.