| Matter of Adams v Administration for Children'sServices-Queens |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08011 [122 AD3d 840] |
| November 19, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Monet Cindy Adams,Appellant, v Administration for Children's Services-Queens et al.,Respondents. |
Deana Balahtsis, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, N.Y., for respondent Cardinal McCloskeyChildren and Family Services.
Frank Bruno, Jr., Glendale, N.Y., for respondent Jeranimor R.
Angella S. Hull, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the children.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Margaret P. McGowan,J.), dated June 12, 2013. The order dismissed with prejudice the paternal great aunt'spetitions for custody of the subject children.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The only concern at a dispositional hearing following a finding of permanent neglectis the best interests of the child (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147[1984]; Matter of Violetta K. v Mary K., 306 AD2d 480, 481 [2003]; Matter of Giselle H., 22 AD3d578, 580 [2005]; Matter of Tenisha Tishonda T., 302 AD2d 534, 535[2003]). At this juncture, a nonparent relative takes no precedence for custody over theadoptive parents selected by an authorized agency (see Matter of Peter L., 59NY2d 513, 520 [1983]; Matter of Violetta K. v Mary K., 306 AD2d at 481).
Here, the record supports the Family Court's determination that the subject children'sbest interests required continuing custody with the foster care agency so that they couldbe made available for adoption by their foster parents (see Matter of Amber B., 50AD3d 1028, 1029 [2008]; Matter of Chastity Imani Mc., 66 AD3d 782, 783 [2009]).Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed the custody petitions of the children'spaternal great aunt. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.