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
DEFENDANT FAILED TO CHALLENGE THE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT IN THE LOWER COURT; THEREFORE THE ALLEGED ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (CT APP).
The Prevailing Wage Statute Applies To All Work Reasonably Interpreted to Be Covered by the Statute—The Fact that the Application of the Statute Is Unsettled At the Time the Public Works Contract Is Entered Does Not Allow the Employer to Escape Its Reach Once the Law Is Settled
CLASS ACTION CLAIM BY TENANTS ALLEGING VARIOUS FORMS OF RENT OVERCHARGES PROPERLY SURVIVED A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS AND SHOULD PROCEED TO THE CERTIFICATION STAGE PURSUANT TO CPLR 902 (CT APP).
Police Officers Properly Allowed to Testify About Victim’s Identification of Defendant Shortly After the Crime/Prior Consistent Statements Not Hearsay
tenant’s failure to report income from a new job to the new york city housing authority was a sufficient reason to terminate her tenancy.
NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, IN RESPONSE TO A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUEST, PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONFIRM OR DENY THE EXISTENCE OF SURVEILLANCE RECORDS ON COUNTERTERRORISM GROUNDS (CT APP).
Reversing Its Prior Decision in this Case, the Court of Appeals Determined the “Servidone” Rule Is to Be Followed in New York/An Insurer Which Has Breached Its Duty to Defend the Insured May Rely On Policy Exclusions to Escape Its Duty to Indemnify the Insured
DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGES TO THE HARVESTING FOR USE AT TRIAL OF RECORDINGS OF PHONE CALLS MADE BY INMATES DURING PRE-TRIAL INCARCERATION REJECTED; THE PRACTICE HOWEVER WAS NOT CONDONED AND THE PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANTS WHO CANNOT MAKE BAIL WAS EXPRESSLY NOTED.

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,...