In re Rosalinda R.
Opinion of the Court
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that respondent abandoned his child by failing to visit or communicate with her during the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition and in addition that he failed to communicate with petitioner during that period of time (see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; [5] [a]; Matter of Ariel C., 248 AD2d 976 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 801 [1998]). Contrary to the contention of respondent, he failed to show that his educational, financial and language difficulties constitute “good reason for failing to visit or otherwise contact the child[ ]” (Matter of Dahata R., 278 AD2d 894, 894 [2000]). The incarceration of respondent during the final two months of the six-month period does not constitute a reasonable excuse for his failure to communicate with his child or petitioner during that two-month period (see Ariel C., 248 AD2d at 976-977). Finally, respondent did not request a suspended judgment (see Matter of Latoya P., 308 AD2d 402 [2003]), and thus we conclude that he failed to preserve for our review his contention that Family Court should have issued a suspended judgment. Present—Green, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Martoche and Pine, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.