Judge Lillian Wan
Non-respondent father, Levy, sought a final order of custody, while, the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) argued the subject child should be placed with ACS until completion of the next permanency hearing, claiming same was in the child’s best interests. The attorney for the child supported Levy’s petition. The court stated, after a full consolidated disposition and custody hearing, placement of the child with ACS was in his best interests. It noted respondent mother was not a discharge resource as she was in prison for her criminal conviction for actions against the child. Levy testified he had no intention for the child to reside with him and his wife in their home in Israel, but intended for the child to go to a board school, yet has not been accepted to one at the moment. The child’s social worker noted Levy does not keep in touch with the boy’s school staff regarding his education or his doctors about his mental health treatment. The court noted the child wished to live with his father, but stated such wishes were only a factor in the court’s consideration, but not dispositive. It ruled it was not in the child’s best interests to award Levy final custody, finding it could not conclude he would provide a safe and permanent home and dismissed Levy’s petition.
