Matter of Jamal S. v. Kenneth S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Jamal S. v. Kenneth S.

2016 NY Slip Op 6793, 143 A.D.3d 555, 39 N.Y.S.3d 28

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

DecidedOctober 18, 2016

Docket1949

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 6793 (Matter of Jamal S. v. Kenneth 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

Matter of Jamal S. v. Kenneth S., 2016 NY Slip Op 6793, 143 A.D.3d 555, 39 N.Y.S.3d 28 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Jennifer Burtt, Ref.), entered on or about June 15, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioner father’s petition for custody of the subject child, continued a prior order granting custody to respondent paternal grandfather, and granted only supervised visitation to the father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The grandfather showed by a preponderance of the evidence that extraordinary circumstances existed, and that it was in the subject child’s best interest that he retain custody (see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 548 [1976]; Matter of Louis N. [Dawn O.], 98 AD3d 918, 919 [1st Dept 2012]). The evidence shows that the father is an unfit parent who has persistently neglected the child and has relinquished his parental rights and responsibilities to the grandfather. In particular, the father’s contact with the child has not been meaningful and has been sporadic since he lost custody in 2009. He also has an extensive history of violence, and there is evidence that he sexually molested a child. In contrast, the evidence shows that the grandfather and the subject child have a loving bond, and that he takes excellent care of the child.

The father waived any right to a hearing on modification of the visitation order by failing to appear at multiple court appearances. Moreover, there is a substantial basis in the record supporting Family Court’s finding that unsupervised visitation with the father is not in the child’s best interest.

Concur— Friedman, J.R, Andrias, Saxe, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Jennifer Burtt, Ref.), entered on or about June 15, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioner father’s petition for custody of the subject child, continued a prior order granting custody to respondent paternal grandfather, and granted only supervised visitation to the father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The grandfather showed by a preponderance of the evidence that extraordinary circumstances existed, and that it was in the subject child’s best interest that he retain custody (see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 548 [1976]; Matter of Louis N. [Dawn O.], 98 AD3d 918, 919 [1st Dept 2012]). The evidence shows that the father is an unfit parent who has persistently neglected the child and has relinquished his parental rights and responsibilities to the grandfather. In particular, the father’s contact with the child has not been meaningful and has been sporadic since he lost custody in 2009. He also has an extensive history of violence, and there is evidence that he sexually molested a child. In contrast, the evidence shows that the grandfather and the subject child have a loving bond, and that he takes excellent care of the child.

The father waived any right to a hearing on modification of the visitation order by failing to appear at multiple court appearances. Moreover, there is a substantial basis in the record supporting Family Court’s finding that unsupervised visitation with the father is not in the child’s best interest.

Concur— Friedman, J.R, Andrias, Saxe, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 6793, 143 A.D.3d 555, 39 N.Y.S.3d 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-jamal-s-v-kenneth-s-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack