IN RE: JESELLE K.J. (2025)

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Ashley B. Black, J.), entered on or about July 31, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, dismissed petitioner maternal grandmother's petitions for visitation and custody of the subject child, and continued the child's placement in foster care, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A sound and substantial basis in the record supports Family Court's dismissal of petitioner's petition for guardianship of the child and continued placement with the child's long-term foster parent, who has provided the now eight-year-old child with a loving and stable home continuously since the child's placement at the age of two (see Matter of Geneva B. v. Administration for Children's Servs., 73 A.D.3d 406, 899 N.Y.S.2d 606 [1st Dept. 2010]).  The foster mother is well-bonded with the child and has met all of the child's special needs in the best way possible.

By contrast, petitioner minimized the child's educational achievements and refused to recognize mental health issues, attributing the child's behavioral challenges to placement in foster care and minimizing the diagnoses, and did not support special education for the child (see Matter of Antonio E.B., 149 A.D.3d 540, 541, 52 N.Y.S.3d 348 [1st Dept. 2017]). Furthermore, petitioner was observed to be incapable of calming or controlling the child during supervised visits, and safety concerns remained an issue, as petitioner proposed impractical means for managing the child (see Matter of Justice V. [Stephanie M.], 194 A.D.3d 531, 532, 149 N.Y.S.3d 23 [1st Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 905, 2021 WL 3927400 [2021];  Matter of Grace L. v. James C., 96 A.D.3d 566, 566, 946 N.Y.S.2d 472 [1st Dept. 2012]).

Petitioner failed to present evidence to contradict the totality of the circumstances that make her an unsuitable guardian for the child (see Matter of Alexander H. v. Sheltering Arms Children & Family Servs., 196 A.D.3d 415, 415, 146 N.Y.S.3d 779 [1st Dept. 2021]).  This finding, based on the court's credibility determinations, is entitled to deference (see Matter of Trina L. v. Michelene M., 227 A.D.3d 472, 474, 211 N.Y.S.3d 38 [1st Dept. 2024]).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.