FIRST NEEDED GET HIS NON-APPEARANCE EXCUSED
After the New York County Family Court terminated his parental rights (based on a finding of “permanent neglect”) and ordered custody of the child be transferred to the Commissioner of Social Services (for the purpose of adoption), the father appealed.
On its review, the Appellate Division, First Department, noted that the determination wasn’t appealable because the outcome was the result of the father’s “nonappearance” at a hearing and that he failed to follow the appropriate steps to get that order vacated.
Contrary to his arguments otherwise, the father’s refusal to participate in a virtual trial was deemed a “default,” and the judge was thus able “to draw the strongest negative inference against him for failing to testify.”
Notwithstanding that procedural context, the AD1 noted that the record contained “clear and convincing evidence” against the dad. Not only had he been remiss in maintaining contact with the youngster, but he failed to plan for the child's future, and neglected to consistently participate in the required services. (It certainly didn’t help that he repeatedly tested positive for marijuana use.)
Finding that his incarceration didn't excuse his failure to communicate with his offspring, and that his counsel committed no error which adversely impacted the representation, the AD1 “unanimously dismissed” the appeal.
Looks like that was all his default ....
# # #
DECISION