| Matter of Faison v Capozello |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03217 [50 AD3d 797] |
| April 8, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Donald Kevin Faison, Appellant, v TaraCapozello, Respondent. Susan Toman et al., Intervenors-Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1.) In theMatter of Donald Kevin Faison, Appellant, v Janet DeMarzo, Respondent. Susan Toman et al.,Intervenors-Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Jeanne R. Burton, Ronkonkoma, N.Y., for respondent-respondent in proceeding No. 1. Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Frank J. Alberti of counsel), forrespondent-respondent in proceeding No. 2. Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Joseph R. Carrieri of counsel), forintervenors-respondents. Joseph D. Mirabella, Mastic, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In two related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the fatherappeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County(Genchi, J.), dated September 15, 2006, as, after a hearing, denied his petitions for custodyagainst the Suffolk County Department of Social Services and the mother.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.[*2]
The father commenced these proceedings to obtaincustody of his infant son, who was placed in the care and custody of the Suffolk CountyDepartment of Social Services due to neglect. The father lives in New Jersey. In the orderappealed from, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the father's petitions for custody. We affirmthe order insofar as appealed from.
Placement of the child with the father in New Jersey must proceed in compliance with theInterstate Compact for the Placement of Children (hereinafter the ICPC) (see SocialServices Law § 374-a [1], art V [a]; Matter of Shaida W., 85 NY2d 453 [1995]; Matter of Ryan R., 29 AD3d 806[2006]; Matter of Keanu Blue R., 292 AD2d 614 [2002]). The purpose of the ICPC is toensure that "[e]ach child requiring placement shall receive the maximum opportunity to beplaced in a suitable environment and with persons or institutions having appropriatequalifications and facilities to provide a necessary and desirable degree and type of care" (SocialServices Law § 374-a [1], art I [a]; see Matter of Shaida W., 85 NY2d 453 [1995];Matter of Ryan R., 29 AD3d806 [2006]; Matter of Keanu Blue R., 292 AD2d 614 [2002]). Here, the State ofNew Jersey performed an investigation and found that the father would not provide a suitableenvironment for his infant son and that placement with the father would not be in the child's bestinterest. Thus, the placement was not permitted under the ICPC (see Matter of ShaidaW., 85 NY2d 453 [1995]; Matter ofRyan R., 29 AD3d 806 [2006]; Matter of Keanu Blue R., 292 AD2d 614[2002]).
In any event, contrary to the father's argument on appeal, review of the record revealssufficient evidence of "extraordinary circumstances" to rebut the presumption of custody in favorof the father and to turn the inquiry to that of the best interests of the child (see Matter ofBennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543 [1976]; Matter of Jodoin v Billings, 44 AD3d 1244, 1245 [2007];Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y. [Sarah P.], 216 AD2d 387[1995]). Further, the denial of custody to the father was in the best interests of the child (seeMatter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543 [1976]). Mastro, J.P., Ritter, Carni andMcCarthy, JJ., concur.