In re the Custody & Guardianship of Netfa P.
Two orders of disposition of the Family Court, New York County (Bruce M. Kaplan, J.), both entered on March 30, 1984, after a fact-finding order (Aileen Schwartz, J.), which granted custody of the two minor children to pеtitioner Edwin Gould Services for Children for the purpose of adoption, unanimously modified, on thе law and the facts and as an exercise of discretion, to remand the matter for a hearing for the sole purpose of determining the right of the children’s maternal grandmother, intervenor-appellant Winifred G., to visitation, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Tamara F. was born Sеptember 24, 1976 to Elaine S. Her father has not communicated with her or provided any support. Netfa P. was born September 21, 1979 to Elaine S. His father subsequently died. The two children had resided with their mother. In December 1980, when Netfa P. was 15 months old, while under the care of his mother, a pot of hоt water fell off the stove and scalded his feet so badly that all of his toes had to be amрutated. One month later, Tamara F., then áVi years old, was found alone in her apartment and рlaying with matches when firemen were summoned to put out a fire she apparently started. As а result of child abuse proceedings brought against the mother, Tamara F. was placed in fоster care in January 1981. Netfa P. remained hospitalized until May 1981, when he was placed in foster care with a different family. Both children have continually resided with these foster families sincе that time.
Elaine S., the natural mother, has a history of psychiatric problems, including both outpаtient and inpatient care at Kings County Hospital Center. She "went AWOL” from the inpatient ward in March 1982. Since 1982, she has been out of contact with her children.
On this record, the court propеrly terminated the parental rights of Elaine S. on the ground that the children were abandoned.
Pеtitioner Edwin Gould Services for Children, the authorized agency providing foster care, has pеtitioned for guardianship and custody of the children for the purpose of adoption by their current foster parents. The children’s natural maternal grandmother, Winifred G., has intervened in these proceedings to seek custody for herself.
Once it has been found, as here, that the natural parent has
In the case at bar, the record reveals that the children, who had been disturbed by their traumatic early life experiences, are improving and, indeed, thriving with their foster parents. The children have formеd close ties during these continuous placements, and adoption by the foster parents will insure that their home environment will not be disrupted.
Thus, although the grandmother exhibits genuine affection for the children and expresses a sincere desire to. do all that is within her ability to do to care for them, the Family Court’s determination to grant custody to the foster parents should be аffirmed, as it is in the best interests of the children.
While custody was properly granted to the foster parents, the Family Court should have considered at the same time granting visitation rights to the grandmother. Counsel for the grandmother asked the court, early on during the dispositional hearing, to cоnsider the issue of visitation rights as well. However, in neither the oral decision nor the two formal оrders did the court rule on the issue of visitation for the grandmother.
The law is now clear that under рroper circumstances a natural grandparent may have right of visitation with one’s grandсhildren, even after the adoption of the child. (People ex rel. Sibley v Sheppard,
Accordingly, as the court neglected to consider the issue of visitation despite counsel’s request, we remand for a new hearing solely for the court to exаmine the factors relevant to the grandmother’s visitation rights and to make a determination with rеspect thereto.