Matter of Javon Reginald G. (Everton Reginald G.)

Matter of Javon Reginald G. v Everton Reginald G. 2011 NY Slip Op 07721 Decided on November 3, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 3, 2011
Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Acosta, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
5924

[*1]In re Javon Reginald G., also known as Javon N.-L., also known as Javon N., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,

and

Everton Reginald G., Respondent-Appellant, Edwin Gould Services for Children and Families, Petitioner-Respondent.




Douglas H. Reiniger, New York, for appellant.
John R. Eyerman, New York, for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith
Waksberg of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan Knipps, J.), entered on or about February 9, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from, determined that respondent father's consent was not required for the subject child's adoption, and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The consent of respondent to the adoption of the subject child was not required since he did not maintain "substantial and
continuous or repeated contact with the child" (Domestic Relations Law § 111[1][d]). Respondent admittedly provided no financial support for the child, and the record does not contain any objective evidence of efforts to visit or communicate with the child (see Matter of Marc Jaleel G., 74 AD3d 689 [2010]; Matter of Chandel B., 58 AD3d 547 [2009]. His incarceration does not absolve him of his responsibility for supporting the child or for maintaining regular contact (see Matter of Bryant Angel Malik J., 76 AD3d 936 [2010]; Matter of Aaron P., 61 AD3d 448 [2009]).

The court's determination that the child's best interests would be served by adoption is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147—148 [1984]). The child has lived with his foster parents since he was one month old, and the foster parents, who have provided the child with a loving and nurturing home, have been attentive to the child's developmental and extraordinary medical needs [*2]
(see Matter of Joshua Jezreel M., 80 AD3d 538 [2011]; Matter of Joaquin Enrique C., III, 79 AD3d 548 [2010]). We have considered and rejected respondent's additional arguments.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 3, 2011

CLERK