Matter of "Baby Girl" W.

Matter of "Baby Girl" W. 2006 NY Slip Op 08256 [34 AD3d 594] November 14, 2006 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, January 17, 2007

In the Matter of"Baby Girl" W., Also Known as Jaclyn W. Jewish Child Care Association, Respondent; Jack W., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of"Baby Girl" W., Also Known as Teyana W. Jewish Child Care Association, Respondent; Jack W., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of"Baby Boy" W., Also Known as Kareem W. Jewish Child Care Association, Respondent; Jack W., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.)

—[*1]

In three related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from [*2]so much of three orders of fact-finding and disposition (one as to each child) of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.), all entered August 25, 2005, as, after a hearing, and upon a finding that he was in violation of the terms and conditions of a suspended judgment of the same court dated April 29, 2004, terminated his parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner sustained its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the father failed to satisfy some of the terms and conditions of the suspended judgment, warranting its revocation (see Matter of Aaron S., 15 AD3d 585, 586 [2005]; Matter of Jordan Amir B., 15 AD3d 477, 478-479 [2005]). The evidence supports the further determination of the Family Court that termination of the father's parental rights was in the children's best interests (see Matter of Aaron S., supra; Matter of Arnold M., 12 AD3d 677, 678-679 [2004]; Matter of Shawna DD., 289 AD2d 892, 894 [2001]).

The father's remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.