Permanency-Goal Modification to “Free for Adoption” Upheld Where Reunification Efforts Were Reasonable and Parent’s Noncompliance Made Return Impossible; Due-Process Timing Claims Require Preservation

1. Introduction

Matter of King P. (James Q.) (Appellate Division, Third Department, Jan. 15, 2026) concerns two children (born 2017 and 2018) removed after a chaotic domestic-violence incident and subsequent observations of injuries. Montgomery County Department of Social Services (DSS) pursued neglect proceedings under Family Ct Act articles 10 and 10-A. The father, James Q., later consented to a neglect finding without admission and agreed to a one-year order of supervision with multiple conditions, while the children remained in foster care.

The central disputes on appeal were:

whether the length of the permanency hearing and the timing of the Family Court decision violated due process;
whether DSS made a “sincere effort” (i.e., reasonable efforts) to reunify the father with the children; and
whether the record supported modifying the permanency goal from “return to parent” (with a concurrent adoption plan) to “free for adoption,” and continuing placement.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Third Department affirmed. It held that the father’s due-process challenge to the duration of the permanency hearing and the timing of the decision was unpreserved because he did not object (and in places consented to scheduling). The Court added that, even if preserved, the record showed good cause for extending the hearing beyond the statutory time limits due to out-of-state witness scheduling and interstate travel.

On the merits, the Court concluded DSS provided appropriate services and visitation support to promote reunification, but the father repeatedly violated key supervision conditions and continued behaviors that raised safety concerns. Given the children’s extended time in care (nearly four years) and the father’s noncompliance—particularly supervision failures, substance-use timing violations, lack of verified lawful income, inconsistent contact, failure to participate in medical decision-making, and continued association with the mother amid domestic-violence/criminal incidents—the modification to a goal of “free for adoption” had a sound and substantial basis and was in the children’s best interests.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Preservation of procedural/due-process objections

Matter of Jemar H. v Nevada I. and Matter of Telsa Z. [Denise Z.]: The Court relied on these cases for the rule that even where procedural protections may not have been strictly followed, a party must object to preserve the issue for appellate review. Here, the father’s failure to object (and his consent to dates) foreclosed review of the due-process timing claim.

Good cause to extend permanency-hearing timing

Matter of Anthony QQ.: Cited to support that departures from statutory timelines may be justified by good cause. The Court analogized the scheduling complexities of four out-of-state witnesses and the father’s interstate travel as circumstances warranting extension.

Family Court authority and the governing standards at permanency hearings

Matter of Winter II. [Kerriann II.]: Used for the principle that Family Court may modify an existing permanency goal at the conclusion of a permanency hearing, entering a disposition based on the proof and the children’s best interests.
Matter of Isayah R. [Shaye R.]: Cited for the overarching policy preference for reunification where possible, and the proposition that reunification remains the goal unless the parent is unable or unwilling to correct the removal conditions.
Matter of Alexus SS. [Chezzy SS.]: Supports the pivot point: once return is established as impossible by a preponderance of the evidence, the system’s focus becomes a permanent, stable solution for the child.

Appellate review deference and evidentiary threshold

Matter of Joshua J. [Tameka J.] and Matter of Gabrielle N. [Linda N.]: The Court applied the “sound and substantial basis in the record” standard to uphold the goal change. This deference is especially significant where credibility findings drive the outcome.
Matter of Dawn M. [Michael M.]: Reinforces affirmance where the record supports Family Court’s best-interests and permanency determinations.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

(a) Due process: objection required; good-cause extension recognized

The Court’s first move was procedural: the father could not litigate the due-process claim on appeal without having preserved it. This reflects a practical appellate principle—trial courts must be given the chance to correct alleged procedural defects in real time. The Court then signaled that, substantively, the claim would fail anyway because the hearing’s length was explained by logistics inherent in an interstate case (multiple out-of-state witnesses and travel), which the Court treated as “good cause” to exceed statutory timing.

(b) Reasonable reunification efforts: services + visitation support satisfied DSS’s obligation

The opinion frames DSS’s reunification role as providing appropriate referrals and support, not guaranteeing reunification. The Court emphasized concrete agency actions: referrals to substance-abuse treatment, domestic-violence programming, anger management, and parenting courses; monitoring participation; arranging in-person visitation when the father traveled; coordinating telephone contact; adding staff presence to structure deteriorating calls; responding to location concerns; and coordinating with South Carolina’s child-welfare agency.

(c) Why return was “impossible” and adoption became appropriate

The Court treated the father’s case as a common but legally decisive pattern: formal program completion without demonstrated behavioral change. Despite completing multiple programs, the record showed ongoing noncompliance with essential safety and stability conditions, including:

arriving for visitation smelling of marijuana and admitting use within the prohibited 24-hour window;
continued arrests and criminal activity in New York and South Carolina;
failure to provide verified lawful income (no tax returns, pay stubs, W-2s), coupled with contradictory accounts and reliance on relatives;
failure to meaningfully engage with or authorize medical care, requiring DSS to seek court authorization for the son’s tonsillectomy;
repeated unsafe supervision during visits (children running toward exits/roadways; physical handling prompting the daughter to yell “don’t choke him”);
demeaning or rejecting statements toward the son during visits, corporal punishment, and expecting staff to “parent” when frustrated;
irregular contact, missed calls, shortened calls, and minimal in-person visitation despite being in New York for court.

A critical aggravating factor was the father’s credibility and continued association with the mother. Family Court found the father evasive and contradictory, including denying recent contact with the mother despite documentary proof, while the volatile relationship that led to removal continued to generate arrests. The appellate court deferred to these credibility determinations and treated ongoing association as a safety concern tied directly to the removal conditions.

(d) Best interests and permanency after prolonged foster care

The children had been in foster care for nearly four years by the end of the hearing. Within that timeframe, the Court reasoned that permanency cannot be indefinitely delayed where the parent has not demonstrated the capacity to safely parent and comply with supervision requirements. Under Family Ct Act § 1089, Family Court was entitled—indeed obligated—to set a plan aligned with stability and best interests, and the record supported that returning the children was not a safe or realistic option.

3.3 Impact

Litigation practice: preservation matters. The decision reiterates that objections to permanency-hearing timing and procedure must be made on the record; otherwise, appellate review is typically barred. This is particularly consequential in long, multi-date permanency hearings where scheduling decisions are frequently made by consent.
Interstate cases: “good cause” flexibility. The Court signals that statutory time limits for permanency hearings can be extended where justified by interstate logistics—especially witness availability and travel. Practitioners should build a record explaining why an extension is necessary and proportional.
Substance, not certificates. The decision underscores that completing services does not control the outcome if the parent’s conduct during visitation and decision-making continues to demonstrate unsafe parenting, instability, or noncompliance with supervision orders.
Visitation conduct can be dispositive. Detailed visitation observations—supervision lapses, physical handling, rejection of a child, and inability to manage behavior safely— were central to the conclusion that return was not feasible.
Credibility and ongoing relationships tied to removal remain relevant. Continued association with a partner linked to the original neglect concerns, coupled with denial contradicted by proof, can weigh heavily against reunification and in favor of a permanency shift.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Permanency hearing (Family Ct Act § 1089): A court review (typically periodic) evaluating where a child in foster care should end up long-term—return home, guardianship, adoption, etc.—based on evidence and best interests.
Permanency goal: The target plan for the child’s long-term placement (e.g., “return to parent” or “free for adoption”).
“Free for adoption”: A permanency goal indicating the case is moving toward adoption as the stable solution (often alongside, or after, steps to terminate parental rights in a separate proceeding).
Concurrent planning: Pursuing reunification while simultaneously preparing an alternative permanency option (like adoption) in case reunification fails.
Order of supervision: Court-ordered conditions a parent must follow (sobriety, stable income proof, safe visitation, avoidance of violence/criminality, medical participation, etc.). Violations can demonstrate inability to safely parent.
Preponderance of the evidence: The standard used here—more likely than not.
Sound and substantial basis: A deferential appellate standard: the decision stands if the record reasonably supports it, especially when credibility findings are involved.
Unpreserved issue: A claim an appellate court generally will not review because the party did not raise it at the trial level when it could have been addressed.

5. Conclusion

Matter of King P. (James Q.) reinforces two practical rules in New York permanency litigation: (1) procedural and due-process complaints about hearing length and timing must be preserved by timely objection; and (2) a permanency goal may properly shift from reunification to adoption when the agency provided meaningful reunification services but the parent’s continuing noncompliance, unsafe visitation conduct, instability, and credibility issues establish that return is not feasible. The decision situates permanency as a child-centered imperative—particularly after years in care—when the record supports that stability and safety cannot be achieved through reunification.