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: MARTIN E., a Juvenile Delinquent. Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Martin E., Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lawliss, J.), entered March 11, 2005, which, inter alia, granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 3, to extend respondent's placement with petitioner.
In December 2003, respondent was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent and placed in petitioner's custody for a period of one year. This proceeding was initiated for an extension of respondent's placement and an approval of his permanency plan. After a hearing, Family Court granted the relief requested, thus prompting this appeal.
We find no error in Family Court's consideration of the Uniform Case Review Risk Assessment and Service Plan, annexed as an exhibit to the petition, since those documents are required by 22 NYCRR 205.17(d)(2). In addition to its consideration of those documents, Family Court reviewed the testimony of the director of clinical services at respondent's residence, its social worker and the family's foster care caseworker, before determining that it was not in respondent's best interests to return to his mother's custody. It found that the mother was unable to provide respondent with meaningful and adequate supervision in light of his then-current behaviors, which demonstrated that he posed a danger to himself, his mother and the community. It further determined that petitioner made reasonable efforts with both respondent and his mother to assist in respondent's safe return home (see Family Ct. Act § 355.3[4][i]; Matter of Michael RR., 266 A.D.2d 709, 710-711, 706 N.Y.S.2d 479 [1999] ). According due deference to the credibility determinations made by Family Court (see Matter of Michael RR., supra at 710, 706 N.Y.S.2d 479; Matter of Sabrina S., 256 A.D.2d 914, 915, 681 N.Y.S.2d 670 [1998] ), we find that a preponderance of credible evidence supports the determination rendered (see Family Ct. Act § 350.3[2]; see also Matter of Mickie PP., 279 A.D.2d 943, 945, 720 N.Y.S.2d 571 [2001] ).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
PETERS, J.
CARDONA, P.J., SPAIN, CARPINELLO and KANE, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 23, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)