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: Arden A. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, appellant; Leslie A. (Anonymous), et al., respondents. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Aaliyah A. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, appellant; Leslie A. (Anonymous), et al., respondents. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Kyle A. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, appellant; Leslie A. (Anonymous), et al., respondents. (Proceeding No. 3)
Argued-October 22, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and John A. Newbery of counsel), attorney for the children.
In three related abuse and neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Lim, J.), dated May 5, 2010, as granted the joint application of the respondent mother and respondent maternal grandmother for visitation supervised only by the foster mother.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the joint application of the mother and maternal grandmother for visitation supervised only by the foster mother is denied, and visitation by the mother and maternal grandmother shall be supervised by the petitioner.
The Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the respondents' application for visitation supervised only by the foster mother before conducting a full evidentiary hearing as to whether that visitation was in the best interests of the children (see Family Ct Act § 1030[d]; Ingarra v. Ingarra, 271 A.D.2d 573, 574; Matter of Sitzer v. Fay, 236 A.D.2d 475; Matter of Madalyn R. v New York City Commr of Soc. Servs., 242 A.D.2d 574; Matter of Emerson v. Nickerson, 205 A.D.2d 899; Marks v. Marks, 133 A.D.2d 742). Under the facts of this case, it is appropriate for the visitation to be supervised by the petitioner.
RIVERA, J.P., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
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: 2010-04295 (Docket Nos. N-12751 /10, N-12752 /10, N-12753 /10)
Decided: November 09, 2010
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)