Giselle S. v. Ann Marie S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giselle S. v. Ann Marie S.

91 A.D.3d 560, 937 N.Y.2d 56

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 26, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 560 (Giselle S. v. Ann Marie S.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Giselle S. v. Ann Marie S., 91 A.D.3d 560, 937 N.Y.2d 56 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The court properly considered the relevant factors when it determined that it was in the child’s best interests to award custody to the father and stepmother. The court found that they had provided the child with structure and a stable home environment, where she was thriving (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172-173 [1982]). The 11-year old child’s preference to return to respondent mother, although a factor to be considered, is not dispositive (see Matter of Cresean W., 55 AD3d .420, 420-421 [2008]).

The court’s determination had a sound and substantial basis in the record. Although respondent appears to have made progress, she failed to demonstrate that she has overcome the problems which led to the child’s removal from her home. Neither respondent’s therapist nor the court-appointed expert rec[561]*561ommend that the child be returned to respondent. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Catterson, Acosta and Román, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The court properly considered the relevant factors when it determined that it was in the child’s best interests to award custody to the father and stepmother. The court found that they had provided the child with structure and a stable home environment, where she was thriving (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172-173 [1982]). The 11-year old child’s preference to return to respondent mother, although a factor to be considered, is not dispositive (see Matter of Cresean W., 55 AD3d .420, 420-421 [2008]).

The court’s determination had a sound and substantial basis in the record. Although respondent appears to have made progress, she failed to demonstrate that she has overcome the problems which led to the child’s removal from her home. Neither respondent’s therapist nor the court-appointed expert rec[561]*561ommend that the child be returned to respondent. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Catterson, Acosta and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 560, 937 N.Y.2d 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giselle-s-v-ann-marie-s-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack