Matter of Bianca R. (Anne Marie S.)

Matter of Matter of Bianca R. (Anne Marie S.) 2012 NY Slip Op 00468 Decided on January 26, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 26, 2012
Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Acosta, Román, JJ.
6632

[*1]In re Bianca R., and Another, Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,

and

Anne Marie S., Respondent-Appellant, Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, Petitioner-Respondent.



In re Giselle S., Petitioner,

and

Carmelo R., Jr., Petitioner-Respondent, Ann Marie S., Respondent-Appellant.




Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ronald
E. Sternberg of counsel), for Commisioner of Social Services of
the City of New York, respondent.
Anne Reiniger, New York, for Carmelo R., Jr., respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith
Stern of counsel), attorney for the child Brianna R.

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about August 23, 2010, which awarded custody of Brianna R. to her father and stepmother, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, insofar as it awarded custody of Bianca R., unanimously withdrawn in accordance with the stipulation of the parties.

The court properly considered the relevant factors when it determined that it was in the child's best interests to award custody to the father and stepmother. The court found that they had provided the child with structure and a stable home environment, where she was thriving (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172-173 [1982]). The 11-year old child's preference [*2]to return to respondent mother, although a factor to be considered, is not dispositive (see Matter of Cresean W. v Betty H., 55 AD3d 420, 420-421 [2008]).

The court's determination had a sound and substantial basis in the record. Although respondent appears to have made progress, she failed to demonstrate that she has overcome the problems which led to the child's removal from her home. Neither respondent's therapist nor the court-appointed expert recommend
that the child be returned to respondent.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 26, 2012

CLERK