You are here: / / GRANDPARENTS, WITH WHOM THE CHILD HAD RESIDED FOR TEN YEARS, HAD STANDING...

GRANDPARENTS, WITH WHOM THE CHILD HAD RESIDED FOR TEN YEARS, HAD STANDING TO SEEK CUSTODY OF THE CHILD; THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE 24-MONTH SEPARATION OF PARENT AND CHILD REQUIRED BY THE “GRANDPARENT STANDING” STATUTE BE CHARACTERIZED BY A COMPLETE LACK OF CONTACT BETWEEN PARENT AND CHILD.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the grandparents had demonstrated standing to seek custody of the child, who had lived with the grandparents from infancy for ten years. Mother argued that, in order to meet the standing requirement of a 24-month separation of parent and child, the child must have had no contact with her during at least a 24-month period. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding no “absence of parental contact” requirement. The case was remanded to the Appellate Division for an application of the “best interests of the child” analysis in the custody proceedings:

Domestic Relations Law § 72 (2) sets forth three “elements” required to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstance of an “extended disruption of custody,” specifically: (1) a 24-month separation of the parent and child, which is identified as “prolonged,” (2) the parent's voluntary relinquishment of care and control of the child during such period, and (3) the residence of the child in the grandparents' household. * * *

Contrary to the mother's contention, a lack of contact is not a separate element under the statute. Indeed, there is no explicit statutory reference to contact or the lack thereof. Rather, the quality and quantity of contact between the parent and child are simply factors to be considered in the context of the totality of the circumstances when determining whether the parent voluntarily relinquished care and control of the child, and whether the child actually resided with the grandparents for the required “prolonged” period of time. Matter of Suarez v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 09231, CtApp 12-16-15

FAMILY LAW (GRANDPARENTS HAD STANDING TO SEEK CUSTODY, NO REQUIREMENT OF A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF PARENTAL CONTACT)/CUSTODY (GRANDPARENTS HAD STANDING TO SEEK CUSTODY, NO REQUIREMENT OF A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF PARENTAL CONTACT)/GRANDPARENT CUSTODY (NO REQUIREMENT OF A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF PARENTAL CONTACT)

You might also like
THE HOUSING STABILITY AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT OF 2019 (HSTPA) DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO RENT OVERCHARGE ACTIONS UNDER THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (RSL) COMMENCED BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS RULING IN ROBERTS (CT APP).
BECAUSE OF A LACK OF PLACEMENT OPTIONS, A CHILD REMOVED FROM SCHOOL WHEN SHE BECAME UNMANAGEABLE REMAINED IN A HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM FOR WEEKS; THE PETITION SOUGHT HER RELEASE FROM THE EMERGENCY ROOM; THE APPEAL WAS DEEMED MOOT BECAUSE THE NYS OFFICE OF PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES HAD FOUND SUITABLE PLACEMENT AND INSTITUTED A PROGRAM TO ENSURE THE PROBLEM WOULD NOT RECUR (CT APP).
Beating of Child Combined with Two-Hour Delay in Seeking Help Constituted Depraved Indifference
OFFICE-BASED SURGERY CENTERS, UNLIKE HOSPITALS AND AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTERS, ARE NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR FACILITY FEES UNDER THE NO-FAULT LAW.
New Notice of Claim Did Not Need to Be Filed After Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Death Due to Injuries Described in the Pre-Death Notice of Claim
Whether Arresting Officers Had Reasonable Suspicion to Stop and Detain Is a Mixed Question of Law and Fact Which Cannot Be Reviewed by the Court of Appeals
AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP).
AFTER MAKING THE LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM PAYMENTS FOR 15 YEARS ON THE PREMIUM DUE DATE (JANUARY 14), PAYMENT WAS NOT TIMELY MADE IN 2018 AND DECEDENT DIED ON FEBRUARY 18, 2018, AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE 31-DAY GRACE PERIOD; COVERAGE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE POLICY WAS AMBIGUOUS AND SHOULD BE INTERPRETED SUCH THAT THE GRACE PERIOD HAD NOT EXPIRED AT THE TIME OF DEATH (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE DID NOT PRECLUDE TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S... DOCTORS, WHO ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO WARN PATIENT OF DISORIENTING EFFECTS OF DRUGS,...