Case ID: ad3d_126/html/0980-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Christopher P. et al., Appellants, v Jason Sidney G. et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Kevin M. et al., Respondents, v Jason Sidney G. et al., Respondents. Christopher P. et al., Nonparty Appellants. (Proceeding No. 2.)
    [3 NYS3d 620]
   Appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County (Mildred T. Negron, Ct. Atty. Ref.), both dated June 5, 2014, made after a hearing. The first order dismissed the petition of Christopher P. and Jessica S. for their appointment as permanent guardians of the person of the subject child. The second order granted the petition of Kevin M. and Laurie V. for their appointment as permanent guardians of the person of the subject child.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellants commenced a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, seeking to be appointed permanent guardians of the person of the subject child. Kevin M. and Laurie V. commenced a separate proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, also seeking to be appointed permanent guardians of the person of the subject child. After an extensive hearing, which included the testimony of a court-appointed forensic evaluator, the Family Court dismissed the appellants’ petition and granted the petition of Kevin M. and Laurie V.

When considering guardianship appointments, the child’s best interests are paramount (see SCPA 1707 [1]; Matter of Deven Meza F. [Maria F.—Oneyda M.], 108 AD3d 701, 702 [2013]). Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Family Court’s determination that the best interests of the child require his placement in the permanent guardianship of Kevin M. and Laurie V. had a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Roberta W. v Carlton McK, 112 AD3d 729, 730 [2013]; Matter of Deven Meza F., 108 AD3d at 702) and, thus should not be disturbed.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court.

Eng, P.J., Dillon, Chambers and Barros, JJ., concur.