Opinion
2014-01073, Docket No. G-3822-12.
04-15-2015
In the Matter of QUIDA H. (Anonymous), v. SARA H. (Anonymous), et al., respondents.
Matthew M. Lupoli, Flushing, N.Y., for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel; Robert D. Bewkes on the brief), for respondent. Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney for the child.
Matthew M. Lupoli, Flushing, N.Y., for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel; Robert D. Bewkes on the brief), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney for the child.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Opinion Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Arnold Lim, J.), dated September 23, 2013. The order, after a hearing, dismissed a petition filed by the maternal great aunt seeking guardianship of the subject child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The only concern at a dispositional hearing following a finding of permanent neglect is the best interests of the child (see Matter of Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 ; Matter of Tenisha Tishonda T., 302 A.D.2d 534, 535, 755 N.Y.S.2d 277 ). “At this juncture, a nonparent relative takes no precedence for custody over the adoptive parents selected by an authorized agency” (Matter of Adams v. Administration for Children's Services–Queens , 122 A.D.3d 840, 840, 996 N.Y.S.2d 702, citing Matter of Peter L., 59 N.Y.2d 513, 520, 466 N.Y.S.2d 251, 453 N.E.2d 480 ). Similarly, when considering guardianship appointments, the child's best interests are paramount (see Matter of Deven Meza F. [Maria F.-Oneyda M.], 108 A.D.3d 701, 702, 968 N.Y.S.2d 889, citing SCPA 1707[1] ).
Here, the record provides a sound and substantial basis for the Family Court's conclusion that it was in the best interests of the child to remain in her foster home and to be freed for adoption by her foster parents. At a hearing held on September 23, 2013, the evidence established that the petitioner, who was certified as a foster parent, made persistent efforts to be considered a resource for the child, had been visiting with the child regularly since December 2012, and was beginning to form a loving bond with the child. Nevertheless, the petitioner was previously investigated by the respondent as a resource for the child, and it was determined for stated reasons that the child should remain in her foster home. The evidence at the hearing also established that the child, who was then 19 months old, had resided with her foster parents for almost her entire life and had formed significant bonds with them, and that the child was happy, healthy, well provided for, and thriving in that home environment (see Matter of Adams v. Administration for Children's Services–Queens, 122 A.D.3d 840, 840, 996 N.Y.S.2d 702 ; Matter of Chastity Imani Mc., 66 A.D.3d 782, 887 N.Y.S.2d 203 ; Matter of Tenisha Tishonda T., 302 A.D.2d 534, 535, 755 N.Y.S.2d 277 ; Matter of Autumn B., 299 A.D.2d 758, 759–760, 751 N.Y.S.2d 67 ; Matter of Edward G., 299 A.D.2d 358, 359, 749 N.Y.S.2d 176 ). Under these circumstances, the Family Court properly dismissed the guardianship petition of the child's maternal great aunt.