Opinion
2013-02-13
In the Matter of ALEX A.E. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Adel E. (Anonymous), appellant.
Michael A. Fiechter, Bellmore, N.Y., for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Diana Lawless of counsel), for respondent.
Michael A. Fiechter, Bellmore, N.Y., for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Diana Lawless of counsel), for respondent.
Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Sena Kim–Reuter and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the child.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SHERI S. ROMAN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
In a child abuse proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Gruebel, J.), dated June 5, 2012, which, after a hearing, denied his application for the return of the subject child to his custody pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028, an application for return of a child “shall” be granted unless the court finds that “the return presents an imminent risk to the child's life or health” (Family Ct. Act § 1028[a] ). In reaching its determination, the “court must weigh, in the factual setting before it, whether the imminent risk to the child can be mitigated by reasonable efforts to avoid removal” ( Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357, 378, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840). The court “ must balance that risk against the harm removal might bring, and it must determine factually which course is in the child's best interests” ( id.). Here, the record provides a sound and substantial basis for the Family Court's denial of the father's application for the return of the subject child to his custody pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 ( see Matter of DeAndre S., 92 A.D.3d 888, 939 N.Y.S.2d 499).
The father's contention that the Family Court erred in conducting an in-camera hearing with the child is unpreserved for appellate review ( see generally Matter of Kimberly Z. [ Jason Z. ], 88 A.D.3d 1181, 1184, 931 N.Y.S.2d 732;Matter of Kleevuort C. [ Fredlyn V. ], 84 A.D.3d 1371, 925 N.Y.S.2d 119;Matter of Metcalf v. Odums, 35 A.D.3d 865, 866, 828 N.Y.S.2d 133;Matter of Vanessa F., 9 A.D.3d 464, 779 N.Y.S.2d 917).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.