In re Ruben J.R.
Appellate Division, First Department
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on March 13, 2003
Mazzarelli, J.P.,
Saxe, Sullivan, Ellerin, Gonzalez, JJ.
461
[*1]In re Guardianship, etc., Ruben J.R., A Child Under the
Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,
and
Ruben R., Respondent-Appellant, The Catholic Child Care
Society, Petitioner-Respondent.
Raymond E. Rogers
George E. Reed, Jr.
David A. LoRe
Order of disposition, Family Court,
Bronx County (Maureen McLeod, J.), entered on or about November 13, 2000,
which, upon a finding that respondent father had abandoned the subject child,
terminated his parental rights to the child and committed custody and
guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social
Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The presumption of abandonment,
clearly and convincingly raised by the evidence of respondent father's failure
to communicate with the child or contact the agency during the six months
immediately preceding the filing of the petition (see Social Services
Law § 384-b[5][a]; Matter of Ishmael A., 264 AD2d 647), was not rebutted
by respondent's less than credible claim that petitioner agency discouraged him
from contacting the child. Since the termination petition was premised on
abandonment, petitioner did not have to show that it had diligently sought to
encourage the parent-child relationship (see Social Services Law §
384-b[5][b]; Matter of Cora Nicola H., 276 AD2d 298; Matter of Jackee
Shertte C., 269 AD2d 229, lv denied 95 NY2d 757). It may be
noted, moreover, that respondent father had no contact whatsoever, nor made any
efforts in that regard, from the time the infant was placed in foster care in
June 1997.
Respondent's claim that he was
constructively denied effective assistance of counsel by reason of the amount
of compensation available to his assigned counsel, is not preserved for our
review and we do not reach it. We note, however, that the record does not
disclose any basis for a claim that the [*2]representation
actually afforded respondent was ineffective (see Matter of Tamara
Liz H., __ AD2d __, 2002 NY App Div LEXIS 12812; Matter of Donald P.,
285 AD2d 510, lv denied 97 NY2d 603). We have considered
appellant's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND
ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: MARCH 13, 2003
CLERK