In re Tatianna K.
Respondents are the parents of Tatianna K. (born in 2006). After Family Court found that the parents had neglected the
An agency seeking to establish permanent neglect must prove that it made diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship and that, despite those efforts, the parent has failed to maintain contact with the child or, as is relevant here, substantially plan for the child‘s future for one year after the agency has been charged with the child‘s care (see
There is merit, however, in the father‘s contention that petitioner failed to establish that he did not substantially plan for the future of the child. A parent plans for the future by utilizing available medical, social and psychological services as needed and providing a stable and adequate home environment (see Matter of Gregory B., 74 NY2d 77, 87 [1989]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d at 142-143). To substantially plan, the
Here, the evidence established that, as part of the plan formulated by petitioner to address the father‘s ability to parent Tatianna, the father needed to stabilize his housing situation, abstain from addictive substances and address his history of problems with anger management and domestic violence. Petitionеr does not now dispute that soon after the father‘s separation from the mother and her chaotic lifestyle, he enterеd into a stable, committed relationship with a female companion and established suitable housing for the child. Nor does pеtitioner now dispute that the issue of substance abuse also was resolved by the father well within the one-year period following рlacement. The record confirms that he obtained a release from the Chemical Dependencies Clinic indicating that he had not used alcohol since January 2008 and did not need further treatment for substance abuse. Further, the foster care cаseworker assigned to the case was aware of no incidents of domestic violence following the father‘s separаtion from the mother, and Family Court‘s decision did not mention stable housing, domestic violence or substance abuse as factors wаrranting a finding that the child was permanently neglected by the father.
Instead, Family Court focused on the father‘s failure to commence anger management counseling and parenting education classes until the fall of 2008, more than one year after the child‘s initial placement date. We note, however, that the Deputy Director of the Otsego County Mental Health Clinic and the senior caseworker providing parental education each testified that the father was fully engaged in their programs, undergoing cognitive behavioral therapy and making significant progress in addressing his issues. The parental educator testified that, as of the timе of the filing of the petition, the father had completed almost 70% of the course, was actively involved, expressed an understanding of the lessons and was able to implement what he had learned in his relationship with the child. To the extent that the court disregarded these meaningful steps taken by the father after the expiration of the one-year period and
Cardona, P.J., Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as granted the petition against respondent Claude U.; petition dismissed as to said respondent; and, as so modified, affirmed.