Admin. for Children's Servs. v. Marie V.A. (In re Leila I.)

• Decision Date: 17 February 2021
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. N–6631–15, N–6632–15, N–6633–15,2019–13268
• Citation: 191 A.D.3d 878,138 N.Y.S.3d 886 (Mem)
• Parties: In the MATTER OF LEILA I. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; v. Marie V.A. (Anonymous), et al., appellants. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Kedasa I. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; v. Marie V.A. (Anonymous), et al., appellants. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Fatuma I. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; v. Marie V.A. (Anonymous), et al., appellants. (Proceeding No. 3)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

191 A.D.3d 878
138 N.Y.S.3d 886 (Mem)

In the MATTER OF LEILA I. (Anonymous).

Administration for Children's Services, respondent;
v.
Marie V.A. (Anonymous), et al., appellants.

(Proceeding No. 1)

In the Matter of Kedasa I. (Anonymous).

Administration for Children's Services, respondent;
v.
Marie V.A. (Anonymous), et al., appellants.

(Proceeding No. 2)

In the Matter of Fatuma I. (Anonymous).

Administration for Children's Services, respondent;
v.
Marie V.A. (Anonymous), et al., appellants.

(Proceeding No. 3)

2019–13268
Docket Nos. N–6631–15, N–6632–15, N–6633–15

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—January 14, 2021
February 17, 2021

Cheryl Charles–Duval, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant Marie V. A.

Carol Kahn, New York, NY, for appellant Ernest I.

James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Jeremy W. Shweder and Rebecca L. Visgaitis of counsel), for respondent.

Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Dawne A. Mitchell and Amy Hausknecht of counsel), attorney for the children.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, and the father separately appeals, from a permanency hearing order of the Family Court, Kings County (Frank M. Hoelldobler, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated October 17, 2019. The permanency hearing order, after a hearing, inter alia, continued the permanency goal of kinship guardianship for the subject children, and denied the separate applications of the mother and the father for a trial discharge of the children to them.

ORDERED that the permanency hearing order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In 2015, the three subject children were removed from the care of their parents (hereinafter together the appellants), after one of the children, Leila I. (hereinafter Leila), who was then five years old, contracted gonorrhea. In 2016, after a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the appellants abused Leila and derivatively abused Leila's siblings. The court credited the testimony of the petitioner's expert, who opined, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Leila's genitals came into contact with infected genital secretions and testified that, without a plausible explanation, this presented a "highly concerning case for sexual abuse." The court placed the children in the custody of the petitioner.

Permanency hearings were conducted on May 2, 2017, and October 16, 2017, after which the Family Court approved the permanency

138 N.Y.S.3d 887

goal of reunification of the children with the appellants. Thereafter, in a permanency order dated March 19, 2018, the court changed the permanency goal from reunification to kinship guardianship. In a permanency order dated October 17, 2019, the court, inter alia, continued the permanency goal of kinship guardianship and denied the separate applications of the appellants for a trial discharge of the children to them.

"Family Court Act article 10–A governs permanency hearings for children placed outside of their homes" ( Matter of Cristella B., 65 A.D.3d 1037, 1039, 884 N.Y.S.2d 773 ; see Matter of Damani B. [Theresa M.], 174 A.D.3d 524, 526, 105 N.Y.S.3d 93 ). "The purpose of the...