| Matter of Selena C. (Thelma C.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07168 [77 AD3d 659] |
| October 5, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Selena C., Also Known as Selena Marika C. Forestdale,Inc., et al., Respondents; Thelma C., Also Known as Thelma M.,Appellant. |
—[*1] John R. Eyerman, New York, N.Y., for respondent Forestdale, Inc. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler, Neema Saran, and Judith Waksberg ofcounsel), attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate the mother's parentalrights by reason of her mental illness, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of anorder of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Danoff, J.), dated March 27,2009, as, upon terminating her parental rights, in effect, denied her application for visitation with thesubject child.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and deposition is reversed insofar as appealed from, on thelaw, without costs or disbursements, and the issue of whether it is in the subject child's best interests forthe Family Court to direct visitation between the mother and the subject child after the termination ofthe mother's parental rights shall be determined after a hearing, which hearing and determination shall bemade by the court in which an adoption petition is pending or, if no such petition is pending, the hearingand determination shall be made by the Family Court.
After terminating the mother's parental rights, the Family Court should have provided for thedetermination, after a hearing, of the issue of whether it is in the subject child's best interests for theFamily Court to direct visitation between the mother and the subject child, as requested by the mother.Although "[t]here is no statutory authorization for a court to order continued visitation with the parentsonce their rights are terminated" (Matter of Lovell Raeshawn McC., 308 AD2d 589, 590[2003]), courts have the inherent authority to provide for visitation between an adopted child and amember of his or her birth family where such visitation is in the best interests of the child and does notunduly interfere with the adoptive relationship (see Matter of Kahlil S., 35 AD3d 1164 [2006]; Matter of CorinthianMarie S., 297 AD2d 382 [2002]). Santucci, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.