You are here: / / PETITIONER HAS THE RIGHT TO PETITION FOR CUSTODY DESPITE ABSENCE OF BIOLOGICAL...

PETITIONER HAS THE RIGHT TO PETITION FOR CUSTODY DESPITE ABSENCE OF BIOLOGICAL OR ADOPTIVE RELATIONSHIP.

Applying the recent overruling of precedent by the Court of Appeals, the Second Department determined petitioner had the right to seek custody of children, despite the absence of a biological or adoptive relationship. The children had been carried by a surrogate, who also sought custody:

During the pendency of this appeal, the Court of Appeals, in Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A. C.C. … , overruled Alison D. because, inter alia, its definition of “parent” had “become unworkable when applied to increasingly varied familial relationships” … . In Brooke S.B., the Court held that, where a partner to a biological parent “shows by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together, the non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing to seek visitation and custody under Domestic Relations Law § 70(a)” … .

Here, Joseph sufficiently demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that he and Frank entered into a pre-conception agreement to conceive the children and to raise them together as their parents. Although the surrogacy contract is not enforceable as against Renee to deprive her of standing under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (see Domestic Relations Law § 124[1]), it is evidence of the parties’ unequivocal intention that Frank and Joseph become the parents of the children. Moreover, Frank and Joseph equally shared the rights and responsibilities of parenthood, and were equally regarded by the children as their parents. Therefore, Joseph established standing to seek custody or visitation under Domestic Relations Law § 70… . Matter of Frank G. v Renee P.-F., 2016 NY Slip Op 05946, 2nd Dept 9-8-16

 

FAMILY LAW (PETITIONER HAS THE RIGHT TO PETITION FOR CUSTODY DESPITE ABSENCE OF BIOLOGICAL OR ADOPTIVE RELATIONSHIP)/CUSTODY (PETITIONER HAS THE RIGHT TO PETITION FOR CUSTODY DESPITE ABSENCE OF BIOLOGICAL OR ADOPTIVE RELATIONSHIP)

You might also like
THE DEFENDANT RETAIL STORE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF AND/OR CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (A PUDDLE OF LIQUID) WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).
Scientific Expert Opinion Need Not Be Based Upon Textual Authority
DEFENDANT LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DOCTORS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ONE DOCTOR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE RESUSCITATION OF THE NEWBORN; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SECOND DOCTOR EMPLOYED THE PROPER RESUSCITATION METHOD (SECOND DEPT).
HERE IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) CASE, THE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE OF PLAINTIFF BY A TEACHER WERE BASED ON HER INABILITY TO CONSENT UNDER THE PENAL LAW; THEREFORE THE SCHOOL COULD ONLY BE LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION UNTIL PLAINTIFF TURNED 17; ALTHOUGH THE ABUSE WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE OFF SCHOOL GROUNDS, THE TEACHER, DURING SCHOOL HOURS, ALLEGEDLY MADE PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S APPEARANCE AND MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO MEET HER AFTER SCHOOL; THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFECT NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PLAINTIFFS DID NOT ALLEGE THAT DEFENDANT CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE; DEFENDANT DRIVER IS EXPECTED TO SEE WHAT SHOULD BE SEEN; WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

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

USE OF PIER 55 FOR REVENUE-GENERATING EVENTS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC TRUST... SURROGACY CONTRACT DOES NOT DEPRIVE MOTHER OF HER PARENTAL RIGHTS.