Opinion
525934
03-07-2019
In the Matter of MELISSA KK., Appellant, v. MICHAEL LL. et al., Respondents, and Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent. (And Another Related Proceeding.)
Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Kelly L. Egan of counsel), for appellant. Thomas H. Webb III, Clinton County Department of Social Services, Plattsburgh, for Clinton County Department of Social Services, respondent. Cheryl Maxwell, Plattsburgh, attorney for the children.
Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Kelly L. Egan of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas H. Webb III, Clinton County Department of Social Services, Plattsburgh, for Clinton County Department of Social Services, respondent.
Cheryl Maxwell, Plattsburgh, attorney for the children.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Devine, J. Petitioner (hereinafter the grandmother) commenced these proceedings in April 2017 to obtain custody of the subject children, two of her grandchildren who were in foster care due to ongoing neglect proceedings. Between the filing of her first and second custody petitions, the parents of the children surrendered their parental rights and freed the children for adoption. The parties then appeared for, as is relevant here, a fact-finding hearing on the custody petitions. Respondent Clinton County Department of Social Services moved to dismiss the petitions at the close of the grandmother's proof, arguing that she had not produced sufficient evidence to support an award of custody and that, in any event, the surrenders of parental rights left adoption as her only viable remedy. Family Court granted the motion, prompting this appeal.
We affirm. "[O]nce the parents have voluntarily surrendered the child, ‘adoption [is] the sole and exclusive means to gain care and custody of the child’; courts are ‘without authority to entertain custody ... proceedings commenced by a member of the child's [extended] family’ " ( Matter of Shirley E. v. David E., 63 A.D.3d 1231, 1232, 879 N.Y.S.2d 640 [2009], quoting Matter of Genoria SS. v. Christina TT., 233 A.D.2d 827, 828, 650 N.Y.S.2d 830 [1996], lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 811, 657 N.Y.S.2d 403, 679 N.E.2d 642 [1997] ; see Matter of Peter L., 59 N.Y.2d 513, 518–519, 466 N.Y.S.2d 251, 453 N.E.2d 480 [1983] ). Thus, regardless of the quality of the grandmother's proof, when the parents "surrendered [their] parental rights to [the Department] for the purposes of adoption, Family Court was deprived of authority to entertain [the grandmother's custody petitions] and appropriately dismissed" them ( Matter of Theresa BB. v. Ryan DD., 64 A.D.3d 977, 978, 882 N.Y.S.2d 580 [2009], lv denied 13 N.Y.3d 707, 887 N.Y.S.2d 4, 915 N.E.2d 1182 [2009] ; Matter of Linda S. v. Krishnia S., 50 A.D.3d 805, 806, 856 N.Y.S.2d 174 [2008] ; see also Matter of Shirley E. v. David E., 63 A.D.3d at 1232, 879 N.Y.S.2d 640 ).
Finally, inasmuch as the grandmother's notice of appeal is limited to the order dismissing her custody petitions, her contentions regarding the related child protective proceedings are not properly before us (see CPLR 5515[1] ; Matter of Demetria FF. [Tracy GG.], 140 A.D.3d 1388, 1390–1391, 33 N.Y.S.3d 570 [2016] ).
Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.