Joseph S. v. Michelle R.F.

3 A.D.3d 446, 770 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 737
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 27, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 446 (Joseph S. v. Michelle R.F.) 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
Joseph S. v. Michelle R.F., 3 A.D.3d 446, 770 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

[447]*447Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Jane Pearl, J), entered on or about February 14, 2002, which, after a fact-finding determination of permanent neglect, awarded custody of the subject child to the petitioning paternal grandparents, under continuing supervision by the Administration for Children’s Services, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

After having found that there existed sufficient evidence of exceptional circumstances due to the mother’s inadequate guardianship and supervision, the court properly considered the child’s best interests in the context of this custody proceeding (Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543 [1976]). The Family Court’s ruling that the best interests of the child dictated award of custody to petitioners, who have provided a loving and stable home for her, and in whose home she is flourishing, was supported by the requisite fair preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Shaka Efion C., 207 AD2d 740 [1994]; Matter of Gerald M., 112 AD2d 6 [1985]).

Respondent, who has been granted biweekly supervised visitation, was found to have left the child unsupervised in a home in which four weapons, at least two of which were loaded, were present; she has also failed to complete a prescribed program of counseling. Contrary to her assertions, there is no evidence in the record that petitioners interfered in the parental relationship (compare Matter of Brittni K., 297 AD2d 236 [2002]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Caron C.G.G. (Alicia G.)
2018 NY Slip Op 6796 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Nadine T. v. Lastenia T.
2018 NY Slip Op 3436 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Elisha W-B. v. Aidan W.
2017 NY Slip Op 5504 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Colon v. Delgado
106 A.D.3d 414 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Linda J. v. Nakisha P.
10 A.D.3d 287 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 A.D.3d 446, 770 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-s-v-michelle-rf-nyappdiv-2004.