Keenan R. v. Julie L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keenan R. v. Julie L.

38 A.D.3d 435, 831 N.Y.S.2d 320

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 435 (Keenan R. v. Julie L.) 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

Keenan R. v. Julie L., 38 A.D.3d 435, 831 N.Y.S.2d 320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Sara E Schechter, J.), entered on or about March 25, 2004, which dismissed the petition for visitation with petitioner’s sisters, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded for a hearing to determine if the best interests of petitioner’s sisters, as well as petitioner, indicate that visitation is appropriate.

In this proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 71 seeking postadoption visitation between siblings, the Family Court did not consider whether petitioner’s efforts to establish a relationship with his adopted sisters has been frustrated by their adoptive parents (cf. Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E., 78 NY2d 178, 182 [1991]), but merely deemed that there was an absence of an ongoing relationship between the siblings. The court should have considered petitioner’s efforts in relation to what he “could reasonably have done under the circumstances” (id. at 183). This does not require the court to order visitation, but only to reach the best interests portion of the required analysis and hold a hearing as to whether visitation is in the best interests of the children. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Sullivan, Buckley and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Sara E Schechter, J.), entered on or about March 25, 2004, which dismissed the petition for visitation with petitioner’s sisters, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded for a hearing to determine if the best interests of petitioner’s sisters, as well as petitioner, indicate that visitation is appropriate.

In this proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 71 seeking postadoption visitation between siblings, the Family Court did not consider whether petitioner’s efforts to establish a relationship with his adopted sisters has been frustrated by their adoptive parents (cf. Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E., 78 NY2d 178, 182 [1991]), but merely deemed that there was an absence of an ongoing relationship between the siblings. The court should have considered petitioner’s efforts in relation to what he “could reasonably have done under the circumstances” (id. at 183). This does not require the court to order visitation, but only to reach the best interests portion of the required analysis and hold a hearing as to whether visitation is in the best interests of the children. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Sullivan, Buckley and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 435, 831 N.Y.S.2d 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keenan-r-v-julie-l-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack