Opinion
2013-02-6
In the Matter of DUANE S. (Anonymous), JR. Administration for Children's Services, respondent, Duane S. (Anonymous), appellant.
Peter Dailey, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Diana Lawless of counsel), for respondent.
Peter Dailey, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Diana Lawless of counsel), for respondent.
Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Tammy Linn and Barbara H. Dildine of counsel), attorney for the child.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Yuskevich, Ct.Atty.Ref.), dated March 29, 2012, as, after a permanency hearing, continued the permanency goal of “placement for adoption” with regard to the child Duane S., Jr.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the petitioner met its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the continuation of the permanency goal of “placement for adoption” with regard to the child Duane S., Jr., was in the child's best interest ( see Matter of Cristella B., 65 A.D.3d 1037, 1039, 884 N.Y.S.2d 773;Matter of Amber B., 50 A.D.3d 1028, 1029, 857 N.Y.S.2d 590). The Family Court's determination to continue the permanency goal of “placement for adoption” has a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Tsulyn A. [ Deborah A.], 90 A.D.3d 748, 749, 934 N.Y.S.2d 323;Matter of Nigel S., 44 A.D.3d 673, 673, 841 N.Y.S.2d 885;Matter of Jennifer R., 29 A.D.3d 1003, 1004–1005, 817 N.Y.S.2d 308).