| Matter of Sahara K. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07846 [66 AD3d 1024] |
| October 27, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Sahara K., an Infant. Nassau County Departmentof Social Services, Appellant; Herlone K., Respondent. |
—[*1] Eileen T. Stapleton, Levittown, N.Y., for respondent. Penny S. Slomovitz-Glaser, Holtsville, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitionerappeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of theFamily Court, Nassau County (Dane, J.), dated March 17, 2009, as, after a hearing, denied itsapplication to release the child to the custody of the nonrespondent mother, awarded therespondent father unsupervised visitation with the child as approved by the foster parents, anddeclined its request to issue an order of protection against the father. By decision and order onmotion dated April 16, 2009, and continued by decision and order dated June 11, 2009, thisCourt stayed enforcement of so much of the order as awarded the father unsupervised visitationwith the subject child as approved by the foster parents.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is modified, on the law, by deleting theprovision thereof awarding the father unsupervised visitation with the child as approved by thefoster parents, and substituting therefor a provision directing that the father shall have supervisedvisitation; as so modified, the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar asappealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court,Nassau County, to set a visitation schedule.
The petitioner argues that the Family Court should not have continued placement of thesubject child in foster care but, rather, should have released the child to the custody of thenonrespondent mother. We disagree. Where, as here, there is evidence that the parent is unableto care for the child and that continued placement in a foster home would be in the child's bestinterests, the Family Court should extend placement of the neglected child (see FamilyCt Act § 1055 [b]; Matter of Sunshine A.Y., 88 AD2d 662, 663 [1982]). Therecord in this case reveals that the mother had committed a violent felony against the respondentfather, and that she had either one or two other arrests for engaging in assaultive behavior. Sincethe psychological evaluation did not shed any light on the mother's ability to parent the child, weagree with the Family Court that the child should remain in foster care pending further forensicevaluation of the parties.[*2]
The Family Court improvidently exercised its discretionin awarding unsupervised visitation to the father at this juncture. The court, however, is directedto revisit the question of whether the father's visitation with the child needs to be supervised afterthe completion of a full forensic evaluation of the father.
The remaining contention of the appellant and the attorney for the child is without merit.Skelos, J.P., Covello, Santucci and Balkin, JJ., concur.