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
THE REFEREE’S REPORT, WHICH IS MERELY ADVISORY AND IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COURT BECAUSE IT WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS THAT WERE NOT PROVIDED TO THE REFEREE (SECOND DEPT).
CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE ALLEGATIONS WILL NOT SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (SECOND DEPT).
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Mandated New Trial—Difference Between Federal and State Ineffectiveness Criteria Explained
ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 WAS DENIED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, THE ORDER WAS SELF-PRESERVED AND APPEALABLE; THE PRESENTATION OF AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT PRECLUDES A FINDING THAT THE ACTION WAS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215, DESPITE THE MOTION COURT’S REJECTION OF THE ORDER AS INCOMPLETE (SECOND DEPT).
INSURER’S FRAUDULENT INCORPORATION DEFENSE TO ITS REFUSAL TO PAY NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO A CORPORATION RUN BY NON-PHYSICIANS WAS PROPERLY PRESENTED TO THE JURY, DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN WHICH NON-PARTIES INVOKED THE FIFTH AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN READ TO THE JURY.
AN ALLEGED CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS NOT IN PLAIN VIEW IN THE VEHICLE; THEREFORE THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A CLOSED CONTAINER IN THE VEHICLE, WHICH REVEALED A WEAPON, WAS NOT JUSTIFIED; WEAPONS CHARGES DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Recovery for On-the-Job Injury Against “Alter Ego” of Plaintiff’s Employer Limited to Workers’ Compensation
Insufficient Proof of Value in Grand Larceny Case.

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 © 2026 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...