| Matter of Amber B. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03640 [50 AD3d 1028] |
| April 22, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Amber B. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Pauline B. et al., Respondents-Respondents; Ruth W., Intervenor-Appellant.(Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Amber B. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Pauline B., Respondent; Ruth W., Intervenor-Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In theMatter of Abquil China W., Also Known as Abby B. Jewish Child Care Association of NewYork, Respondent; Pauline B. et al., Respondents; Ruth W., Intervenor-Appellant. (ProceedingNo. 3.) In the Matter of Amber Olivia B. Jewish Child Care Association of New York,Respondent; Pauline B. et al., Respondents; Ruth W., Intervenor-Appellant. (Proceeding No. 4.)In the Matter of Angelica Sylvia B. Jewish Child Care Association of New York, Respondent;Pauline B. et al., Respondents; Ruth W., Intervenor-Appellant. (Proceeding No. 5.) In the Matterof Male B., Also Known as Omar B. Jewish Child Care Association of New York, Respondent;Pauline B. et al., Respondents; Ruth W., Intervenor-Appellant. (Proceeding No. 6.) In the Matterof Joshue Paul B., Also Known as Joshua B. Jewish Child Care Association of New York,Respondent; Pauline B. et al., Respondents; Ruth W., Intervenor-Appellant. (Proceeding No.7.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Leonard Koerner and ElizabethI. Freedman of counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Diane Pazar of counsel), attorneyfor the children.
In related proceedings, inter alia, pursuant to Family Court Act article 10-a, the intervenormaternal grandmother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.),dated October 3, 2006, which, after a permanency hearing, denied her application for custody ofthe subject children.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Family Court Act § 1089 (d) provides that "[a]t the conclusion of each permanencyhearing, the court shall, upon the proof adduced . . . in accordance with the bestinterests and safety of the child . . . determine and issue its findings, and enter anorder of disposition in writing." Under the statute, the Family Court is given authority to"approve . . . or modify" the permanency goal, which may be "return to parent,""placement for adoption," or "permanent placement with a fit and willing relative" (Family CtAct § 1089 [d] [2] [i] [A], [B], [D]; see Matter of A.B. v D.W., 16 Misc 3d 578, 581 [2007]; Matter of Jessica F., 7 AD3d 708,710 [2004] [Family Ct Act former § 1055 (b) (iv) (B) (5) (iv)]).
Here, the Administration for Children's Services established its prima facie burden ofdemonstrating the appropriateness of the permanency goal of adoption by the foster parents bysubmitting evidence that the children have been in the same foster homes since they were placedin foster care in 2002, that the foster homes were found to be appropriate, and that the childrenhave bonded with their respective foster parents. Further evidence demonstrated that the fosterparents are adequately providing for the children's special needs, and that it was the children'swish to [*2]remain with their foster parents.
The Family Court's finding that the maternal grandmother, while not unfit, had little or norelationship with the children prior to their entering foster care and had no relationship with themduring the first three years of their placement, is supported by the record. Accordingly, theFamily Court properly denied the maternal grandmother's application for custody and determinedthat the children's best interests required continuing custody with the Administration forChildren's Services so that they could be made available for adoption by their foster parents (see Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d1003 [2006]; Matter of Angela S. vAdministration for Children's Servs., 39 AD3d 551 [2007]; Matter of Mary Liza J. vOrange County Dept. of Social Servs., 198 AD2d 350 [1993]; Matter of David B., 2 AD3d 725[2003]; Matter of James v Hickey, 6AD3d 536 [2004]). Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.