Matter of Adams v. Administration for Children's Services-Queens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Adams v. Administration for Children's Services-Queens

122 A.D.3d 840, 996 N.Y.S.2d 702

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 19, 2014·No. 2013-06933·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Margaret E McGowan, J.), dated June 12, 2013. The order dismissed with prejudice the paternal great aunt’s petitions for custody of the subject children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The only concern at a dispositional hearing following a finding of permanent neglect is the best interests of the child (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147 [1984]; Matter of Violetta K. v Mary K., 306 AD2d 480, 481 [2003]; Matter of Giselle H., 22 AD3d 578, 580 [2005]; Matter of Tenisha Tishonda T., 302 AD2d 534, 535 [2003]). At this juncture, a nonparent relative takes no precedence for custody over the adoptive parents selected by an authorized agency (see Matter of Peter L., 59 NY2d 513, 520 [1983]; Matter of Violetta K. v Mary K., 306 AD2d at 481).

Here, the record supports the Family Court’s determination that the subject children’s best interests required continuing custody with the foster care agency so that they could be made available for adoption by their foster parents (see Matter of Amber B., 50 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2008]; Matter of Chastity Imani Me., 66 AD3d 782, 783 [2009]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed the custody petitions of the children’s paternal great aunt.

Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Margaret E McGowan, J.), dated June 12, 2013. The order dismissed with prejudice the paternal great aunt’s petitions for custody of the subject children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The only concern at a dispositional hearing following a finding of permanent neglect is the best interests of the child (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147 [1984]; Matter of Violetta K. v Mary K., 306 AD2d 480, 481 [2003]; Matter of Giselle H., 22 AD3d 578, 580 [2005]; Matter of Tenisha Tishonda T., 302 AD2d 534, 535 [2003]). At this juncture, a nonparent relative takes no precedence for custody over the adoptive parents selected by an authorized agency (see Matter of Peter L., 59 NY2d 513, 520 [1983]; Matter of Violetta K. v Mary K., 306 AD2d at 481).

Here, the record supports the Family Court’s determination that the subject children’s best interests required continuing custody with the foster care agency so that they could be made available for adoption by their foster parents (see Matter of Amber B., 50 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2008]; Matter of Chastity Imani Me., 66 AD3d 782, 783 [2009]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed the custody petitions of the children’s paternal great aunt.

Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Matter of Adams v. Administration for Children's Services-Queens, 122 A.D.3d 840, 996 N.Y.S.2d 702 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

122 A.D.3d 840 (Matter of Adams v. Administration for Children's Services-Queens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related