From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 23, 2005
23 A.D.3d 959 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

97858.

November 23, 2005.

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.

Richard V. Manning, Parishville, for appellant.

Van Crockett, Clinton County Department of Social Services, Plattsburgh, for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Spain, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur.


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 [i]; Matter of Michael RR., 266 AD2d 709, 710-711). According due deference to the credibility determinations made by Family Court ( see Matter of Michael RR., supra at 710; Matter of Sabrina S., 256 AD2d 914, 915), we find that a preponderance of credible evidence supports the determination rendered ( see Family Ct Act § 350.3; see also Matter of Mickie PP., 279 AD2d 943, 945).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 23, 2005
23 A.D.3d 959 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

In the Matter of Martin

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MARTIN E., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 23, 2005

Citations

23 A.D.3d 959 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 8921
804 N.Y.S.2d 458

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Robin G.

ature in 1999 served two important and related policies: the achievement of permanency for children placed in…

In re Robin

option of ASFA by the State Legislature in 1999 served two important and related policies: the achievement of…