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: Keyevon Justice P., etc., and Others, Dependent Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Lativia Denice P., etc., Respondent–Appellant, Graham–Windham Services to Families and Children, Petitioner–Respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Rhonda J. Panken of counsel), attorney for the children.
_
Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about October 29, 2010 and November 1, 2010, which, upon findings of abandonment, terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the subject children and transferred custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Clear and convincing evidence shows, among other things, that respondent had no contact with the children for two years before the filing of the petition. Under the circumstances, Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying respondent's request for a dispositional hearing after the finding of abandonment (see Matter of “Male” G., 30 AD3d 337, 338 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 711 [2006] ). Respondent's belated argument that she is engaged in services and has an alternative plan for the children is unavailing.
Family Court properly denied the maternal grandmother's custody petition. The children had not expressed a desire to see the mother's side of the family, and the grandmother has no preemptive statutory or constitutional right to custody (Matter of Peter L., 59 N.Y.2d 513, 520 [1983] ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
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.
Docket No: 6304– 6304A
Decided: December 13, 2011
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)