From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Rockland County Dept. of Soc. Serv

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 12, 1994
207 A.D.2d 788 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

September 12, 1994

Appeal from the Family Court, Rockland County (Stanger, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 26, 1992, is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated May 15, 1993, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent and the Law Guardian are awarded one bill of costs.


The subject child was born in 1990 with a positive cocaine toxicology and has lived with his foster parents since birth. In March 1992 the Rockland County Department of Social Services instituted a proceeding in the Family Court, Rockland County, to have the child declared permanently neglected, and to have custody awarded to it. On June 18, 1992, the appellant, the child's maternal grandmother, filed a petition in the Family Court, Rockland County, seeking custody.

One week later, on June 26, 1992, the Family Court held a fact-finding hearing with respect to the permanent neglect petition. The court concluded that the child was neglected, and placed him in the custody and guardianship of the Rockland County Department of Social Services for purposes of adoption. The court then stated that placement was "premature" since "[w]e have to terminate the rights of the natural father if we find out who the natural father is". Thus, the court directed service upon the putative father by publication, and adjourned the neglect proceeding until August 13, 1992. On the adjourned date, the Family Court refused to hear the appellant's custody petition, and foreclosed any rights of the putative father. No dispositional hearing was ever held subsequent to the fact-finding hearing.

In the order appealed from dated October 26, 1992, the child was declared permanently neglected and custody was transferred to the Rockland County Department of Social Services. In the second order appealed from, dated May 15, 1993, the Family Court converted the petition for custody into a petition for visitation, since permanent custody had been previously granted to the Rockland County Department of Social Services. Thereafter, the child was formally adopted by his foster mother.

The appellant has no standing to challenge any defect in the permanent neglect proceeding against the child's parents, since she was not a party to that proceeding. Accordingly, her appeal from the order dated October 26, 1992, is dismissed (see, CPLR 5511).

Since custody and guardianship was transferred to the Rockland County Department of Social Services, the appellant's recourse was to seek adoption, and not mere custody of the child (see, Matter of Peter L., 59 N.Y.2d 513; Matter of Mary Liza J. v Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., 198 A.D.2d 350; Matter of Arnetta S. v. Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y., 186 A.D.2d 519). However, as the petitioner respondent Rockland County Department of Social Services concedes, the appellant could petition for visitation (see, Matter of Emanuel S. v. Joseph E., 78 N.Y.2d 178). Accordingly, the Family Court did not err in converting the appellant's custody petition into one for visitation. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Rockland County Dept. of Soc. Serv

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 12, 1994
207 A.D.2d 788 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Matter of Rockland County Dept. of Soc. Serv

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the ROCKLAND COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, on…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 12, 1994

Citations

207 A.D.2d 788 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
616 N.Y.S.2d 521

Citing Cases

Snypes v. Administration for Children's Serv

In November 2000 the appellant petitioned for custody of the child. The Family Court properly granted the…

North v. Christine Y.

The grandmother's custody petition was thereafter dismissed.The Family Court properly denied the petition for…