Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: BRENDA J., Petitioner-Respondent, v. NICOLE M., Respondent-Appellant.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Marian R. Shelton, J.), entered on or about December 24, 2007, finding that respondent, the child's mother, is an unfit parent and represents an ongoing danger to the subject child, and awarding custody of the child to petitioner, the child's grandmother and respondent's mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of unfitness (see generally Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys, 40 N.Y.2d 543, 548, 387 N.Y.S.2d 821, 356 N.E.2d 277 [1976] ) has ample support in the record, including petitioner's testimony, which was credited by the court; respondent's admissions concerning her use of corporal punishment and testimony that she continues to believe in it; photographs, hospital records and the report of the ACS caseworker documenting scars that resulted from the punishment; and the testimony of the court-appointed psychologist that, despite parenting classes and counseling, the child would be in danger were he to be left in an unsupervised situation with respondent because of her history of explosive, aggressive behavior and lack of self-control. The psychologist also testified that respondent was unwilling to continue therapy, lacked insight into her weaknesses as a parent, and suffered from significant mental problems. The finding as to the child's best interests is supported by the psychologist's testimony that petitioner is supportive and sensitive to the child's needs, went to great lengths to ensure that the child was safe from respondent, and provided a stable and loving home environment. Any irregularity in the temporary custody award to petitioner was rendered academic by the subsequent permanent custody award, which was reached after a full and fair hearing (see Matter of Miller v. Shaw, 51 A.D.3d 927, 927-928, 859 N.Y.S.2d 666 [2008], lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 706, 866 N.Y.S.2d 609, 896 N.E.2d 95 [2008] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 24, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)