Opinion
2013-04-24
In the Matter of DYLAN MC. (Anonymous). Nassau County Department of Social Services, et al., respondents; Michelle M. Mc. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Connor Mc. (Anonymous). Nassau County Department of Social Services, et al., respondents; Michelle M. Mc. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Michael W. (Anonymous), petitioner-respondent, v. Michelle M. Mc. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 3)
Arza Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant. John Ciampoli, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert F. Van der Waag of counsel), for respondent Nassau County Department of Social Services.
Arza Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant. John Ciampoli, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert F. Van der Waag of counsel), for respondent Nassau County Department of Social Services.
Bruce J. Cohen, Jericho, N.Y., for petitioner-respondent Michael W.
Eileen T. Stapleton, Levittown, N.Y., attorney for the children.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.
In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, and a related child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Greenberg, J.), dated April 13, 2011, which, after a hearing, granted the father's petition for custody of the subject children and awarded her only therapeutic supervised visitation and any other supervised visitation agreed upon by the parties.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court did not improperly delegate its authority to determine visitation issues in the best interests of the children to the court-appointed forensic evaluator ( cf. Matter of Balgley v. Cohen, 73 A.D.3d 1038, 1038, 900 N.Y.S.2d 659;Matter of Sinnott–Turner v. Kolba, 60 A.D.3d 774, 776, 875 N.Y.S.2d 512;Matter of Held v. Gomez, 35 A.D.3d 608, 608, 824 N.Y.S.2d 741;Grisanti v. Grisanti, 4 A.D.3d 471, 474–475, 772 N.Y.S.2d 700;Johnson v. Johnson, 303 A.D.2d 641, 642, 757 N.Y.S.2d 87), or to either or both of the parents ( cf. Taylor v. Jackson, 95 A.D.3d 1604, 1605, 945 N.Y.S.2d 465;Matter of Taylor v. Fry, 63 A.D.3d 1217, 1219, 880 N.Y.S.2d 721;Matter of William BB. v. Susan DD., 31 A.D.3d 907, 908, 818 N.Y.S.2d 354).
The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the mother's counsel's request to be relieved eight months after the combined dispositional and custody hearing had begun ( see Matter of Khan v. Dolly, 39 A.D.3d 649, 650, 833 N.Y.S.2d 608;Cashdan v. Cashdan, 243 A.D.2d 598, 598, 663 N.Y.S.2d 271). There is no evidence that the mother's conduct rendered it unreasonably difficult for counsel “to carry out employment effectively” ( Green v. Gasparini, 24 A.D.3d 505, 506, 808 N.Y.S.2d 292;see generally Walker v. Mount Vernon Hosp., 5 A.D.3d 590, 590, 772 N.Y.S.2d 832).
The mother's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit. Viewed in totality, the record shows that the mother received meaningful representation ( see Matter of Marra v. Hernandez, 102 A.D.3d 699, 700, 956 N.Y.S.2d 908;Matter of Rodriguez v. Suarez, 93 A.D.3d 730, 730, 939 N.Y.S.2d 870;Matter of Larrier v. Williams, 84 A.D.3d 805, 806, 924 N.Y.S.2d 272). The mother failed to show that any of counsel's alleged deficiencies constituted anything other than a legitimate, albeit unsuccessful, trial strategy ( see Matter of Larrier v. Williams, 84 A.D.3d at 806, 924 N.Y.S.2d 272;Matter of Lewis v. Cross, 80 A.D.3d 835, 837, 913 N.Y.S.2d 836).