| Matter of Pryor v Lindsay |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01987 [60 AD3d 859] |
| March 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Christine Pryor, Appellant, v ElijahLindsay, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Christine Pryor, Appellant, v SuffolkCounty Department of Social Services, Respondent. (Procceding No. 2.) In the Matter ofChristine Pryor, Appellant, v Natasha Mathis, Respondent. (Procceding No.3.) |
—[*1] Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Brian B. Mulholland of counsel), forrespondent Suffolk County Department of Social Services.
In three related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, thepetitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), datedFebruary 21, 2008, which, after a hearing, denied her petitions for custody of her granddaughter.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The standard to be applied in a change of custody determination is the best interests of thechild (see Matter of Destiny O., 44AD3d 951, 952 [2007]). "Social Services Law § 383 (3) gives preference for adoptionto a foster parent who has cared for a child continuously for a period of 12 months or more,while members of the child's extended biological family are given no special preference withregard to custody" (Matter of TakyliaB., 24 AD3d 759 [2005]; see Matter of Peter L., 59 NY2d 513 [1983]). Thus, anonparent relative takes no precedence for custody over the adoptive parents selected by anauthorized agency (see Matter of Peter L., 59 NY2d at 520; Matter of Linda S. v Krishnia S., 50AD3d 805 [2008]; Matter of Ella J.v Iva J., 4 AD3d 527, 528 [2004]).
Here, the Family Court, in a well-reasoned decision, considered the totality of thecircumstances and properly determined that the child's best interests required continuing custodywith the Suffolk County Department of Social Services so that the child could be made availablefor adoption by the foster mother with whom the child had resided for almost two years. Thechild had bonded with the foster mother, and was healthy, happy, and well-provided forfinancially (see Matter of Linda S. v Krishnia S., 50 AD3d at 805; Matter of DestinyO., 44 AD3d at 951; Matter of Takylia B., 24 AD3d at 759; Matter of Ella J. vIva J., 4 AD3d at 527). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the maternalgrandmother's custody petitions. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.