## Facts

- Delores B. was a six-year-old child whose father, Willie B., was serving a sentence of 25 years to life for murder.
- Willie B. was incarcerated when Delores was born.
- Delores was placed in the care of an authorized child-services agency and remained in that placement during the proceedings.
- Willie B. maintained regular contact with Delores and with the agency, including visits when the agency transported Delores to the prison.
- Willie B. sought to have members of his family care for Delores during his imprisonment; despite assistance from the agency, those arrangements did not work out.
- Willie B. would not consent to Delores’s adoption and instead proposed that Delores remain in temporary agency placement while he remained incarcerated.
- The agency filed a petition under N.Y. Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate Willie B.’s parental rights, alleging Delores was a “permanently neglected” child because Willie B. failed to provide a realistic and feasible plan for her future.

## Issues

1. Whether an incarcerated parent permanently neglects a child under N.Y. Social Services Law § 384-b when the parent maintains contact but cannot provide a realistic, workable plan for the child’s long-term care.
2. Whether the agency satisfied its statutory obligation to make diligent efforts to encourage and help maintain the parent-child relationship and assist with planning, given the limits of incarceration.

## Decision

- The Family Court dismissed the agency’s petition to terminate Willie B.’s parental rights to Delores.
- The court found that, considering the restrictions of imprisonment, Willie B. maintained contact with Delores and participated with the agency in efforts to plan for her care through relatives.
- The court concluded the agency did not prove permanent neglect within the meaning of § 384-b on the record presented.

## Legal Principles

- Under N.Y. Social Services Law § 384-b, a finding of permanent neglect requires proof that, for the required statutory period while the child is in authorized agency care, the parent substantially and continuously or repeatedly failed to maintain contact with the child or failed to plan for the child’s future, although physically and financially able to do so.
- “Planning” requires more than expressions of concern or affection; it requires reasonable steps toward a feasible future arrangement for the child, evaluated in light of the parent’s circumstances.
- Incarceration does not, by itself, establish permanent neglect; the parent’s conduct must be assessed with attention to what the parent could realistically do while confined.
- The petitioner must also prove it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship and to assist the parent in developing a plan, to the extent such efforts are practical under the circumstances.
- A desire to avoid adoption, without more, does not automatically establish permanent neglect; termination requires satisfaction of the statutory elements by clear and convincing evidence.

## Conclusion

The Family Court declined to terminate Willie B.’s parental rights to Delores B. because, despite his long-term imprisonment and the lack of a successful long-term placement plan through relatives, the proof showed ongoing contact and planning attempts within the limits of incarceration, and the agency did not establish permanent neglect under Social Services Law § 384-b.


In re Guardianship and Custody of Delores B., 30 Misc. 2d 484, 496 N.Y.S.2d 930 (1985)