DECISION & ORDER
In related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, the father appeals from two orders of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Ilana Gruebel, J.) (one as to each child), both dated September 14, 2023. The orders of fact-finding and disposition, insofar as appealed from, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the father permanently neglected the subject children, terminated his parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children to the petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In 2020, the petitioner commenced these proceedings, inter alia, to terminate the fathers parental rights to the two subject children. Following fact-finding and dispositional hearings, the Family Court, among other things, found that the father had permanently neglected the children, terminated his parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the children to the petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption. The father appeals.
Contrary to the fathers contention, the petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that he permanently neglected the children (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a]), despite the petitioners diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationships. Those efforts included developing an appropriate service plan that involved parenting skills courses, mental health counseling, anger management classes, psychological and psychiatric evaluations, and visits with the children. Despite those efforts, the father failed to plan for the return of the children because, despite participating in the services offered by the petitioner, he failed to learn and benefit from the programs he attended (see Matter of William E.P. [Monasha A.B.], 137 A.D.3d 918, 919, 27 N.Y.S.3d 172; Matter of James T.L. [Robert L.], 133 A.D.3d 759, 760, 20 N.Y.S.3d 138).
The evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing established that termination of the fathers parental rights was in the childrens best interests (see Matter of Damaris E.A. [Johanna A.M.], 217 A.D.3d 860, 861–862, 191 N.Y.S.3d 666; Matter of Christina M.A.R. [Megan M.R.], 154 A.D.3d 690, 691, 61 N.Y.S.3d 660). Moreover, a suspended judgment was not appropriate in light of the fathers lack of insight into his problems and his failure to acknowledge and address the issues preventing the return of the children to his care (see Matter of Christina M.A.R. [Megan M.R.], 154 A.D.3d at 691, 61 N.Y.S.3d 660; Matter of Stephon B.M. [Barry J.M.], 149 A.D.3d 1080, 1081, 52 N.Y.S.3d 501).
The fathers remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
CONNOLLY, J.P., GENOVESI, WARHIT and WAN, JJ., concur.