| Matter of Blaize F. (Christopher F.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04693 [74 AD3d 1454] |
| June 3, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Blaize F. and Others, Children Alleged to beAbused and/or Neglected. Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent;Christopher F., Appellant. |
—[*1] Marcel J. Lajoy, Albany, for Tina F.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lawliss, J.),entered October 13, 2009, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant toFamily Ct Act article 10, to extend the supervision of respondent.
The underlying facts are set forth in earlier appeals (see Matter of Blaize F., 64 AD3d 936 [2009]; Matter of Blaize F., 55 AD3d 974[2008]; Matter of Blaize F., 50AD3d 1182 [2008]; Matter ofBlaize F., 48 AD3d 1007 [2008]). Briefly stated and as is currently relevant, petitionerbrought this proceeding to extend supervision regarding respondent's two stepdaughters and, inthat petition, it also requested that respondent be granted unsupervised visitation with his son,Blaize F. At the ensuing hearing, both petitioner and the attorney for Blaize advocated forunsupervised visitation. Petitioner's witnesses unequivocally supported permitting respondent tohave unsupervised visitation with Blaize and described in detail the positive interaction betweenrespondent and Blaize as well as respondent's successful completion [*2]of pertinent programs. With no proof having been presentedopposing unsupervised visitation, Family Court nonetheless produced and admitted intoevidence its own exhibit, a Canadian study entitled "A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness ofTreatment of Sexual Offenders: Risk, Need, and Responsibility." Subsequently, in the closingstatement, petitioner stated that it had erred in including Blaize in the petition and acknowledgedthat the petition should be dismissed as to him. However, Family Court rendered a decision (thatincluded a lengthy quote from its exhibit) in which it granted the petition as to Blaize andextended the existing requirement for supervised visitation. Respondent appeals.
We reverse as to Blaize. "Family Court is authorized to make successive extensions ofsupervision 'upon a hearing and for good cause shown' " (Matter of Caleb L., 289 AD2d902, 902 [2001], quoting Family Ct Act § 1054 [b]), and we generally do not disturb suchan extension "unless it lacks a sound basis in the record" (Matter of Amanda WW., 43 AD3d 1256, 1257 [2007] [internalquotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Blaize F., 64 AD3d at 937). Here,all the witnesses and all the parties supported unsupervised visitation. Petitioner acknowledgedthat it should not have even brought the proceeding as to Blaize and agreed with respondent thatthe petition should be dismissed. Family Court's production of its own exhibit and then relyingthereon in disregard to every witness and all the parties was improper (see generally People vArnold, 98 NY2d 63, 67-69 [2002]). The court's determination that the witnesses wereunreliable and lacked credibility—one of whom it had characterized in an earlier matterinvolving these parties as "credible and highly reliable"—is unsupported by the record.Finally, we note that the attorney for Blaize has submitted a passionate plea on behalf of thechild—now a six-foot-tall teenager—expressing "terrible frustration" with thelimitations imposed and imploring that the petition be dismissed so that he can spend meaningfultime with his father. Since the record does not contain a sound or substantial basis supporting thepetition and further reveals that Family Court acted arbitrarily, we agree that the petition as toBlaize must be dismissed.
Spain, J.P., Rose, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is modified, on thelaw and the facts, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as granted the petition with respectto Blaize F.; petition dismissed as to Blaize F.; and, as so modified, affirmed.