Opinion
October 19, 1998
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Segal, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs and disbursements.
A petition for an extension of foster-care placement is governed by Family Court Act § 1055, which gives the court discretion to order successive extensions of 12 months each ( see, Family Ct Act § 1055 [b] [i]). In order to extend the placement, the petitioner must establish, by a preponderance of evidence, that the parents are presently unable to care for their children and that the continuation of foster care is in the children's best interests ( see, Matter of Belinda B., 114 A.D.2d 70; Matter of Antonelli v. Department of Social Servs., 155 A.D.2d 598; Matter of Kenneth G., 39 A.D.2d 709).
In this case, the petitioner failed to meet that burden. After a six-day hearing, the Family Court concluded that the respondents were loving parents who had benefited from several years of therapy and parent training. Although the children had been diagnosed with various developmental and psychological problems, the testimony of several mental health professionals who had worked closely with the family established that the parents could provide the necessary care. The Family Court's determination is entitled to great deference since that court had the advantage of viewing the witnesses and assessing their credibility ( see, Matter of Sunshine A. Y., 88 A.D.2d 662). We find the court's determination was supported by the record. Moreover, the fact that the parents may still need some social services does not preclude them from regaining custody of their children ( see, Matter of Patricia N., 239 A.D.2d 322).
O'Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.