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
EVEN WHERE IT IS POSSIBLE DEFENDANT LACKS THE CAPACITY TO UNDERSTAND THE SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDINGS, THE RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE WITHOUT AN INDEPENDANT ASSESSMENT OF DEFENDANT’S MENTAL CAPACITY (CT APP).
IN THIS FIRE-DAMAGE CASE, THE INSURANCE POLICY IMPOSED A TWO-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD; THE ACTION WAS NOT BROUGHT UNTIL SIX YEARS AFTER THE FIRE; PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE ANY DETAILS DEMONSTRATING WHY THE RESTORATION COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT; THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).
WHERE A PARTY IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, THE FAMILY COURT ACT TIME-LIMIT FOR OBJECTING TO AN ORDER BEGINS TO RUN WHEN THE ATTORNEY, NOT THE PARTY, IS NOTIFIED OF THE ORDER.
UNLIKE A LEVEL-ONE OR LEVEL-TWO STREET STOP, A LEVEL-THREE STREET STOP JUSTIFIES POLICE PURSUIT, EVEN IF THE REASON FOR THE STOP, HERE AN APPARENT IMPENDING ASSAULT, WAS DISSIPATED BY THE SUSPECT’S FLIGHT (CT APP).
NYS STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ DETERMINATION THAT THE DISABLED COOPERATIVE SHAREHOLDER WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST WHEN SHE WAS PROHIBITED FROM KEEPING A DOG IN HER COOPERATIVE APARTMENT CONFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, REVERSING THE APPELLATE DIVISION (CT APP).
Conviction for Selling T-Shirts without a Vendor’s License Upheld—Constitutional Expression vs. Commercial Enterprise
Attempt to Violate a Prison Rule Is Sufficient to Find a Violation/Intent Is Irrelevant
Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Access to a Flat Roof through a Window and a Fall from the Roof Into an Unprotected Air Shaft Were Foreseeable

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,...