Opinion
2011-12-13
In the Matter of JULIAN T. (Anonymous).Nassau County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent;Jessica M. (Anonymous), appellant.
Ralph R. Carrieri, Mineola, N.Y., for appellant. John Ciampoli, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (David A. Tauster of counsel; John P. Hogan on the brief), for respondent.
Ralph R. Carrieri, Mineola, N.Y., for appellant. John Ciampoli, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (David A. Tauster of counsel; John P. Hogan on the brief), for respondent.
Gail M. Berkowitz, Centerport, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a consolidated child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 and child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Nassau County (Kent, J.), dated April 13, 2010, which, upon an order of the same court dated March 8, 2010, granting the motion of the Nassau County Department of Social Services for summary judgment on the issues of whether she abused and severely abused the subject child, and, after a dispositional hearing, awarded custody of the child to the father.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The “essential consideration” in the placement of a child in a child protective proceeding and in making an award of custody is the best interests of the child, and the Family Court's determination will be upheld where it has a sound and substantial basis in the record ( Matter of Howard A.W. v. Nyah Vernell J., 88 A.D.3d 733, 930 N.Y.S.2d 483; see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260; Matter of Reyes v. Polanco, 83 A.D.3d 849, 850, 922 N.Y.S.2d 104; Matter of Daniel R. [ Lucille R.], 70 A.D.3d 839, 842, 894 N.Y.S.2d 165; Matter of Ramazan U., 303 A.D.2d 516, 517, 756 N.Y.S.2d 442).
Contrary to the mother's contention, the record supports the Family Court's determination that awarding custody to the father is in the best interests of the subject child. The mother and her boyfriend were arrested for severely beating the child when he was six years old, and the mother subsequently pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child. Thereafter, in the child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother was found to have both abused and severely abused the child ( see Family Ct. Act § 1051[e] ). At the time of the dispositional hearing, the mother was incarcerated pursuant to her criminal convictions, and an order of protection was in place prohibiting her from having any contact with the child until July 5, 2017. In contrast, the testimony presented at the dispositional hearing demonstrated that the father had provided a safe and stable home for the child, and that the child was doing well in his care. Further, the father had demonstrated a willingness to foster a relationship between the maternal family and the child. Accordingly, the Family Court's determination awarding the father custody of the child has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and will not be disturbed ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260; Matter of Howard A.W. v. Nyah Vernell J., 88 A.D.3d 733, 930 N.Y.S.2d 483; Matter of Daniel R. [ Lucille R.], 70 A.D.3d at 842, 894 N.Y.S.2d 165).
The mother's remaining contention is without merit.