Adams v. Admin. for Children's Services-Queens

Full title: In the Matter of Monet Cindy Adams, appellant, v. Administration for…

Court: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Nov 19, 2014

122 A.D.3d 840 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 8011

996 N.Y.S.2d 702

Opinion

2013-06933

11-19-2014

In the Matter of Monet Cindy Adams, appellant, v. Administration for Children's Services-Queens, et al., respondents.

Deana Balahtsis, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, N.Y., for respondent Cardinal McCloskey Children and Family Services. Frank Bruno, Jr., Glendale, N.Y., for respondent Jeranimor R. Angella S. Hull, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the children.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.

THOMAS A. DICKERSON

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS

SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ. (Docket Nos. V-23762-11, V-23763-11, V-3955-12)

Deana Balahtsis, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, N.Y., for respondent Cardinal McCloskey Children and Family Services.

Frank Bruno, Jr., Glendale, N.Y., for respondent Jeranimor R.

Angella S. Hull, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the children.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Margaret P. 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; Matter of Violetta K. v Mary K., 306 AD2d 480, 481; Matter of Giselle H., 22 AD3d 578, 580; Matter of Tenisha Tishonda T., 302 AD2d 534, 535). 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; 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; Matter of Chastity Imani Mc., 66 AD3d 782, 783). Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed the custody petitions of the children's paternal great aunt.

SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, CHAMBERS and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court