You are here: / / PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD WITH THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER RATHER THAN WITH HER...
,

PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD WITH THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER RATHER THAN WITH HER FOSTER HOME WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the child, Tabitha, should not have been removed from her foster home and placed with her maternal grandmother:

… T]he determination of the Family Court that it was in Tabitha’s best interests to be removed from her foster home, where she had resided for over four years, and to be placed in the kinship foster home of the maternal grandmother lacks the requisite sound and substantial basis in the record … . In determining the best interests of the child, “[t]here is no presumption that the children’s best interests will be better served by a return to a family member” … . Indeed, ” 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'”… . “Moreover, while the law expresses a preference for keeping siblings together, the rule is not absolute and may be overcome where the best interests of each child lie in residing apart” … . Here, the court gave inappropriate weight to this preference, as Tabitha and her brother only shared a household with the maternal grandmother for the first five months of Tabitha’s life (see id.). Moreover, the record reveals that Tabitha has closely bonded with her foster family and remains healthy, happy, and well-provided for … . Therefore, the court erred in determining that it was in Tabitha’s best interests to be moved to the kinship foster home of the maternal grandmother rather than remain with her foster mother for the purpose of adoption, which the record shows is the intent of the foster mother … . Matter of Tabitha T. S. M. (Tracee L. M.–Candace E.), 2018 NY Slip Op 01468, Second Dept 3-7-18

FAMILY LAW (PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD WITH THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER RATHER THAN WITH HER FOSTER HOME WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD (SECOND DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD WITH THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER RATHER THAN WITH HER FOSTER HOME WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD (SECOND DEPT))/FOSTER CARE  (PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD WITH THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER RATHER THAN WITH HER FOSTER HOME WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SCAFFOLD-COLLAPSE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE BY AN EMPLOYEE OF A GROUP FOSTER HOME, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A DISCOVERABILITY HEARING BEFORE DETERMINING WHICH FOSTER-CARE RECORDS WERE DISCOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).
RABBINICAL COURT IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER DOCTRINE OF ARBITRAL IMMUNITY.
POWERS GRANTED TO THE GUARDIAN FOR AN INCAPACITATED PERSON SHOULD NOT HAVE EXCEEDED THOSE RECOMMENDED BY THE COURT APPOINTED EVALUATOR (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; I.E., THE NOTICE MUST BE MAILED IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE WITH NO OTHER MATERIALS, AND THE NOTICE MUST BE SENT SEPARATELY TO EACH BORROWER (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE ASSESSEMENT OF RISK LEVEL POINTS WHICH WERE NOT REQUESTED BY THE PEOPLE OR THE BOARD VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
IF THE 2008 FORECLOSURE ACTION COMMENCED BY AEGIS WAS VALID, THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION BY A DIFFERENT BANK WOULD BE TIME-BARRED; PLAINTIFF BANK RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT BY SUBMITTING EVIDENCE THAT AEGIS DID NOT POSSESS THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE AT THE TIME THE 2008 ACTION WAS COMMENCED AND THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT).
COMMON CARRIER DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP SIDEWALK CLEAR OF ICE AND SNOW BECAUSE THE SIDEWALK SERVED AS INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR SEVERAL COMMON CARRIERS, NOT SOLELY DEFENDANT COMMON CARRIER.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE 2014 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE... FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED, ALTHOUGH CPLR...