Matter of Amaya A. (Brenda P.-H.--Elizabeth R.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Amaya A. (Brenda P.-H.--Elizabeth R.)

2017 NY Slip Op 6597, 153 A.D.3d 1160, 60 N.Y.S.3d 661

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 2017

Docket4469

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6597 (Matter of Amaya A. (Brenda P.-H.--Elizabeth R.)) 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

Matter of Amaya A. (Brenda P.-H.--Elizabeth R.), 2017 NY Slip Op 6597, 153 A.D.3d 1160, 60 N.Y.S.3d 661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about June 13, 2016, which, after a consolidated dispositional and custody hearing, terminated respondent mother’s parental rights upon a fact-finding determination of severe abuse and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children to petitioner agency and the Administration for Children Services for the purpose of adoption, and denied and dismissed petitioner maternal grandmother’s petition for custody, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence supports the Family Court’s determination that it would not have been in the children’s best interests to grant the grandmother’s custody petition and uproot the children from their pre-adoptive foster home, where they have spent the majority of their lives and developed a close bond with their foster mother, whom they call “mommy” (see Matter of Karin R. [Delinda R.], 146 AD3d 526, 527-528 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 903 [2017]). The mother’s contention that, rather than terminating her rights, the court should have issued a suspended judgment is unpreserved, and, in any event, without merit under these circumstances, where the children lived in a stable pre-adoptive foster home and had not seen the mother in years (see Matter of Darryl Clayton T. [Adele L.], 95 AD3d 562, 563 [1st Dept 2012]).

The mother’s argument that the lengthy proceedings violated her due process rights is unpreserved, and, in any event, without merit, as the hearing commenced in April 2016, approximately one month after the petitions to terminate the mother’s parental rights were amended, and a decision was issued in June 2016. The mother’s further contention that the court heard inadmissible hearsay evidence is also unpreserved, and likewise, without merit. The court, sua sponte, corrected an evidentiary ruling regarding hearsay, and the mother fails to specify what evidence relied upon by the court in its decision was inadmissible.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Kapnick, Kern and Moulton, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about June 13, 2016, which, after a consolidated dispositional and custody hearing, terminated respondent mother’s parental rights upon a fact-finding determination of severe abuse and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children to petitioner agency and the Administration for Children Services for the purpose of adoption, and denied and dismissed petitioner maternal grandmother’s petition for custody, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence supports the Family Court’s determination that it would not have been in the children’s best interests to grant the grandmother’s custody petition and uproot the children from their pre-adoptive foster home, where they have spent the majority of their lives and developed a close bond with their foster mother, whom they call “mommy” (see Matter of Karin R. [Delinda R.], 146 AD3d 526, 527-528 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 903 [2017]). The mother’s contention that, rather than terminating her rights, the court should have issued a suspended judgment is unpreserved, and, in any event, without merit under these circumstances, where the children lived in a stable pre-adoptive foster home and had not seen the mother in years (see Matter of Darryl Clayton T. [Adele L.], 95 AD3d 562, 563 [1st Dept 2012]).

The mother’s argument that the lengthy proceedings violated her due process rights is unpreserved, and, in any event, without merit, as the hearing commenced in April 2016, approximately one month after the petitions to terminate the mother’s parental rights were amended, and a decision was issued in June 2016. The mother’s further contention that the court heard inadmissible hearsay evidence is also unpreserved, and likewise, without merit. The court, sua sponte, corrected an evidentiary ruling regarding hearsay, and the mother fails to specify what evidence relied upon by the court in its decision was inadmissible.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Kapnick, Kern and Moulton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6597, 153 A.D.3d 1160, 60 N.Y.S.3d 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-amaya-a-brenda-p-h-elizabeth-r-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack