Opinion
December 16, 1991
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Tejada, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We agree with the Family Court that the petitioner foster mother does not have standing to initiate a custody proceeding (see, Matter of Minella v Amhrein, 131 A.D.2d 578, 579; Matter of Michael W., 120 A.D.2d 87, 92; Katie B. v Miriam H., 116 A.D.2d 545, 546; Little Flower Children's Servs. v Andrew C., 144 Misc.2d 671, 676). Social Services Law § 383 (3) provides only that "[f]oster parents having had continuous care of a child, for more than twelve months * * * shall be permitted * * * to intervene in any proceeding involving * * * custody" (emphasis supplied). Contrary to the petitioner's contention, her informal agreement with the natural mother prior to formally assuming the role of a foster parent does not afford standing (cf., Matter of Anonymous v Olson, 112 A.D.2d 299).
We have examined the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and O'Brien, JJ., concur.