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: Christine PRYOR, appellant, v. Elijah LINDSAY, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1)
IN RE: Christine Pryor, appellant, v. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent. (Proceeding No. 2)
IN RE: Christine Pryor, appellant, v. Natasha Mathis, respondent. (Proceeding No. 3).
In three related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated February 21, 2008, which, after a hearing, denied her petitions for custody of her granddaughter.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The standard to be applied in a change of custody determination is the best interests of the child (see Matter of Destiny O., 44 A.D.3d 951, 952, 846 N.Y.S.2d 188). “Social Services Law § 383(3) gives preference for adoption to a foster parent who has cared for a child continuously for a period of 12 months or more, while members of the child's extended biological family are given no special preference with regard to custody” (Matter of Takylia B., 24 A.D.3d 759, 807 N.Y.S.2d 130; see Matter of Peter L., 59 N.Y.2d 513, 466 N.Y.S.2d 251, 453 N.E.2d 480). Thus, a nonparent relative takes no precedence for custody over the adoptive parents selected by an authorized agency (see Matter of Peter L., 59 N.Y.2d at 520, 466 N.Y.S.2d 251, 453 N.E.2d 480; Matter of Linda S. v. Krishnia S., 50 A.D.3d 805, 856 N.Y.S.2d 174; Matter of Ella J. v. Iva J., 4 A.D.3d 527, 528, 771 N.Y.S.2d 719).
Here, the Family Court, in a well-reasoned decision, considered the totality of the circumstances and properly determined that the child's best interests required continuing custody with the Suffolk County Department of Social Services so that the child could be made available for adoption by the foster mother with whom the child had resided for almost two years. The child had bonded with the foster mother, and was healthy, happy, and well-provided for financially (see Matter of Linda S. v. Krishnia S., 50 A.D.3d at 805, 856 N.Y.S.2d 174; Matter of Destiny O., 44 A.D.3d at 951, 846 N.Y.S.2d 188; Matter of Takylia B., 24 A.D.3d at 759, 807 N.Y.S.2d 130; Matter of Ella J. v. Iva J., 4 A.D.3d at 527, 771 N.Y.S.2d 719). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the maternal grandmother's custody petitions.
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: March 17, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)