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
DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 111 GIVES A COURT THE DISCRETION TO DISPENSE WITH AN ADULT ADOPTEE’S CONSENT TO ADOPTION; HERE PETITIONERS WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO ADOPT MARION T., A 66-YEAR-OLD NON-VERBAL WOMAN WITH A SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY (CT APP).
THE OVER $3,000,000 VERDICT IN THIS TOXIC TORT CASE REVERSED; THE PROOF THAT DEFENDANT’S TALCUM POWDER, WHICH ALLEGEDLY CONTAINED ASBESTOS, CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S LUNG CANCER WAS DEEMED INSUFFICIENT; THE STANDARD FOR PROOF OF CAUSATION IN TOXIC TORT CASES DISCUSSED IN DEPTH (CT APP).
Determination Town Justice Should Be Removed from Office Sustained
DEFENDANT’S HAND UNDER HIS HOODIE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE ELEMENT OF ROBBERY FIRST WHICH REQUIRES THE DISPLAY OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE A FIREARM.
Defense Counsel’s Failure to Object to the Prosecutor’s Mischaracterization of the Strength and Meaning of DNA Evidence Constituted Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS VALID, BUT THE POLICE OFFICERS SAW NOTHING TO INDICATE A WEAPON WAS IN THE CAR; THE SEARCH OF THE CAR AND SEIZURE OF A WEAPON FROM AN OPEN PURSE IN THE BACK SEAT WAS ILLEGAL (FIRST DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED AT TRIAL BUT REPRESENTED HIMSELF IN PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS; THE JUDGE NEVER ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING ONESELF OR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ATTORNEY ACTING AS A “LEGAL ADVISOR” TO THE DEFENDANT AND AN ATTORNEY WHO “REPRESENTS” THE DEFENDANT; CONVICTION REVERSED AND MATTER REMITTED TO REPEAT PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS (CT APP).
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FEES FOR CIVIL SERVICE EXAMS IS NOT A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATION UNDER THE TAYLOR LAW (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,...