Pacheco v. Morales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pacheco v. Morales

5 A.D.3d 387, 772 N.Y.S.2d 541

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

DecidedMarch 1, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 387 (Pacheco v. Morales) 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

Pacheco v. Morales, 5 A.D.3d 387, 772 N.Y.S.2d 541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the paternal grandmother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J.), dated September 30, 2002, as, after a hearing, denied her petition seeking custody of her grandson.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Many factors are involved in determining what is in the best interests of a child in a custody case (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172-173 [1982]; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 94 [1982], citing Nehra v Uhlar, 43 NY2d 242 [1977]). Pursuant to Family Court Act §§ 251 and 252, one of the tools that a court may use in determining what is in the best interests of a child is a forensic evaluation of any person within its jurisdiction or the parent of any child within its jurisdiction. However, under the circumstances of this case, the court’s refusal to order a forensic evaluation of the foster mother was a provident exercise of its discretion.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Smith, H. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the paternal grandmother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J.), dated September 30, 2002, as, after a hearing, denied her petition seeking custody of her grandson.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Many factors are involved in determining what is in the best interests of a child in a custody case (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172-173 [1982]; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 94 [1982], citing Nehra v Uhlar, 43 NY2d 242 [1977]). Pursuant to Family Court Act §§ 251 and 252, one of the tools that a court may use in determining what is in the best interests of a child is a forensic evaluation of any person within its jurisdiction or the parent of any child within its jurisdiction. However, under the circumstances of this case, the court’s refusal to order a forensic evaluation of the foster mother was a provident exercise of its discretion.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Smith, H. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 387, 772 N.Y.S.2d 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacheco-v-morales-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack