Opinion
12-21-2016
In the Matter of DAVID L.S. (Anonymous) III. Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Caprice L.T. (Anonymous), appellant.
Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Ellen Ravitch of counsel), for respondent. Anna Stern, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the child.
Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Ellen Ravitch of counsel), for respondent.
Anna Stern, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the child.
Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Alan Beckoff, J.), dated December 3, 2015. The order, after a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028, denied the mother's motion to return the subject child to her custody.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner commenced this neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 against the mother in June 2015. In October 2015, the subject child was removed from the mother's custody. The mother then moved to have the child returned to her custody. After a hearing, the Family Court denied the mother's motion. The mother appeals.
The Family Court must grant an application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 for the return of a child who has been temporarily removed “unless it finds that the return presents an imminent risk to the child's life or health” (Family Ct. Act § 1028[a] ; see Matter of Ryliegh B. [Madelan B.], 141 A.D.3d 579, 579, 34 N.Y.S.3d 597 ; Matter of Julissia B. [Navasia J.], 128 A.D.3d 690, 691, 7 N.Y.S.3d 596 ; Matter of Alex A.E. [Adel E.], 103 A.D.3d 721, 722, 960 N.Y.S.2d 147 ; Matter of DeAndre S. [Latoya F.S.], 92 A.D.3d 888, 939 N.Y.S.2d 499 ). In making its determination, the Family 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[,] ... balance that risk against the harm removal might bring, and ... determine factually which course is in the child's best interests” (Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357, 378, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840 ; see Matter of Ryliegh B. [Madelan B.], 141 A.D.3d at 579, 34 N.Y.S.3d 597; Matter of Julissia B. [Navasia J.], 128 A.D.3d at 691, 7 N.Y.S.3d 596 ; Matter of Alex A.E. [Adel E.], 103 A.D.3d at 722, 960 N.Y.S.2d 147 ; Matter of DeAndre S. [Latoya F.S.], 92 A.D.3d at 888, 939 N.Y.S.2d 499 ).
Here, the record provides a sound and substantial basis for the Family Court's determination to deny the mother's application for the return of the subject child to her custody pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 (see Matter of Alex A.E. [Adel E.], 103 A.D.3d at 722, 960 N.Y.S.2d 147 ; Matter of DeAndre S. [Latoya F.S.], 92 A.D.3d at 888, 939 N.Y.S.2d 499 ).
AUSTIN, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and DUFFY, JJ., concur.