Opinion
2013-02-28
In re SANDRA N., Petitioner–Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, et al., Respondents, Seamen's Society for Children and Families, et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Law Offices of Randal S. Carmel, Syosset (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for appellant. John R. Eyerman, New York, for Seaman's Society for Children and Families, respondent.
Law Offices of Randal S. Carmel, Syosset (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for appellant. John R. Eyerman, New York, for Seaman's Society for Children and Families, respondent.
Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for Little Flower Children and Family Services, respondent.
Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, attorney for the child Elijah N.
TOM, J.P., SWEENY, RENWICK, ABDUS–SALAAM, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J.), entered on or about July 22, 2011, which, inter alia, denied and dismissed petitioner great grandmother's petition for custody of the subject children, and transferred custody and guardianship of the children to the respective agencies and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the children to deny the petition and to free each child for adoption by their respective foster mothers, with whom each child has lived since shortly after birth ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982] ). There is no presumption that it is in a child's best interest for custody to be awarded to a relative ( see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147–148, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 [1984] ), and the record demonstrates that each child has thrived in their foster homes, and both foster parents have tended to the needs to the children and have expressed a love for the child in their custody and the desire to adopt. Although the court-appointed expert expressed some reservations concerning one of the foster parents, the court properly determined that there was no ambivalence in her love for the child and the desire to adopt him ( see Matter of Louise E.S. v. W. Stephen S., 64 N.Y.2d 946, 947, 488 N.Y.S.2d 637, 477 N.E.2d 1091 [1985] ). Moreover, the expert noted that petitioner had minimized the children's problems, namely, one child's special needs and the other child's language and development delays.