Opinion
02-15-2024
In the MATTER OF PRINCE T.A.M.-F., a Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Tarell M., Petitioner–Appellant, v. Brianna F., et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Chase H. Mechanick of counsel), for Administration for Children’s Services, respondent. Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem, New York (Michael Weinstein of counsel), for Brianna F., respondent. Donna C. Chin, Niverille, attorney for the child.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant.
Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Chase H. Mechanick of counsel), for Administration for Children’s Services, respondent.
Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem, New York (Michael Weinstein of counsel), for Brianna F., respondent.
Donna C. Chin, Niverille, attorney for the child.
Moulton, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, Mendez, Rodriguez, JJ. Order, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about November 29, 2022, which, after a hearing, granted the petition of petitioner-respondent Kimberly A., to appoint her kinship guardian of the subject child and dismissed petitioner father’s petition for custody, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Family Court’s determination that the award of guardianship to the great-aunt was in the child’s best interests is supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1055–b[a][ii]; Matter of Caron C.G.G. [Alicia G.-Jasmine D.], 165 A.D.3d 476, 476–477, 85 N.Y.S.3d 430 [1st Dept. 2018]). The father does not dispute that extraordinary circumstances to entertain the petition existed (see Family Ct Act § 1055–b[a][iv][A]). The child was placed in foster carè with the great-aunt at infancy after a neglect finding was entered against his mother and while the father was incarcerated. The great aunt, who has now cared for the child for almost the entirety of his life, provides a stable and loving home environment, and has been meeting his medical, educational, and emotional needs (see Matter of Jason Jiyell 203 A.D.3d 460, 461-462, 163 N.Y.S.3d 73 [1st Dept. 2022]). Moreover, since his release, the father has had inconsistent visits with the child and has not otherwise planned for the child’s return. There is no basis to depart from the findings of Family Court, which had the ability to view the witnesses and hear the testimony (see Matter of Celenia M. v. Faustino M., 77 A.D.3d 486, 909 N.Y.S.2d 59 [1st Dept. 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 702, 2011 WL 135183 [2011]).
We have considered the father’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.