| Matter of Vanisha J. (Patricia J.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06350 [87 AD3d 696] |
| August 23, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Vanisha J. Administration for Children's Serviceset al., Respondents; Patricia J., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Medina J.Administration for Children's Services et al., Respondents; Patricia J., Appellant. (ProceedingNo. 2.) |
—[*1]
Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for respondentGraham-Windham Services to Families and Children. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Diane Pazar of counsel), Attorneyfor the Children.
In two related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminateparental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, in which the paternal grandmother, PatriciaJ., was granted leave to intervene on the issue of custody, Patricia J. appeals, as limited by herbrief, from (1) so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Danoff, J.), dated April27, 2010, as dismissed her petition for an award of custody of the subject children, (2) so muchof an order of disposition of the same court dated May 14, 2010, as placed the child Vanisha J. inthe custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York andGraham-Windham Services to Families and Children for the purpose of adoption, and (3) somuch of an order of disposition of the same court dated May 14, 2010, as placed the childMedina J. in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York andGraham-Windham Services to Families and Children for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
The standard to be applied in a change of custody determination is the best interests of thechild (see Matter of Chastity ImaniMc., 66 AD3d 782, 783 [2009]; Matter of Pryor v Lindsay, 60 AD3d 859 [2009]; Matter of Destiny O., 44 AD3d951, 952 [2007]). " 'Social Services Law § 383 (3) gives preference for adoption to afoster parent who has cared for a child continuously for a period of 12 [*2]months or more, while members of the child's extended biologicalfamily are given no special preference with regard to custody' " (Matter of Chastity ImaniMc., 66 AD3d at 783, quoting Matter of Pryor v Lindsay, 60 AD3d 859 [2009]; see Matter of Takylia B., 24 AD3d759 [2005]; Matter of Peter L., 59 NY2d 513 [1983]). Thus, a nonparent relativetakes no precedence for custody over the adoptive parents selected by an authorized agency(see Matter of Peter L., 59 NY2d 513 [1983]; Matter of Chastity Imani Mc., 66AD3d at 783; Matter of Pryor vLindsay, 60 AD3d 859 [2009]).
Here, the Family Court considered the totality of the circumstances and all of the evidencesubmitted over the lengthy dispositional hearing, and properly determined that continuing thesubject children's placement and releasing the children for the purpose of adoption by the fostermother and father, with whom the children had lived for the previous five years and who hadalready adopted two of the subject children's siblings, was in the children's best interests (seeMatter of Chastity Imani Mc., 66 AD3d at 783; Matter of Pryor v Lindsay, 60 AD3dat 859; Matter of Destiny O., 44 AD3d at 952). Skelos, J.P., Belen, Hall and Roman, JJ.,concur.