You are here: / / FATHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT...
,

FATHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT MAKING A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS, MATTER REMITTED; THE USUAL PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARDING CUSTODY TO A NONPARENT DO NOT APPLY TO A TEMPORARY PLACEMENT WITH A NONPARENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a hearing, determined father’s petition for modification of custody should not have been dismissed as moot without making a determination of the merits. The court noted that the usual requirements for awarding custody to a nonparent did not apply to the maternal aunt in this case because she did not petition for custody and the children were merely placed with her temporarily:

The father initially filed a petition for modification of custody and visitation against the mother, seeking primary residential custody of their three children. Petitioner Genesee County Department of Social Services then commenced a neglect proceeding against the mother, and the mother consented to the entry of orders finding the subject children to be neglected children. Family Court held a joint hearing regarding the neglect petition and the father’s custody petition … , after which the court placed the children with their maternal aunt with the mother’s consent but over the father’s objection, and dismissed the father’s custody petition as moot.

… [W]e agree with the father that the court erred in dismissing his petition for modification of custody and visitation as moot without making a determination on the merits of his petition pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 … . We further agree with the father that, ” ‘[a]s between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has a superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right because of surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness or other like extraordinary circumstances’ ” … . Nevertheless, on the facts of this case, we conclude that the maternal aunt did not have the burden of making a showing of extraordinary circumstances inasmuch as she did not file a petition in this matter and was not awarded custody of the children, but rather the children were placed with her for the pendency of the article 10 proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act § 1017 … . Matter of Michael J.M. v Lisa M.H., 2021 NY Slip Op 01573, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

You might also like
ASKING DEFENDANT WHY HE WAS NERVOUS DEEMED A NONINCRIMINATING QUESTION, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED.
Corporate Integrity Documents Privileged Under Education Law 6527 (3)
TOWN PROCEEDINGS ABOUT WHETHER THE TOWN WAS OBLIGATED TO PLOW THE ROAD LEADING TO PETITIONER’S PROPERTY WAS NOT A “QUASI-JUDICIAL” PROCEEDING AND THEREFORE THE STANDARD OF REVIEW WAS NOT “SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE;” THE STANDARD IS WHETHER THE DETERMINATION WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS OR AFFECTED BY AN ERROR OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WHOLE FOODS STORE IN THE VICINITY OF A RECREATIONAL TRAIL AND A PUBLIC USE EASEMENT VIOLATES THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Actus Reus for Burglary and Murder Not the Same—Consecutive Sentences Valid
IN A MANDAMUS PROCEEDING WHICH IS TRIGGERED BY A DEMAND BY PETITIONER, AN UNREASONABLE DELAY IN MAKING THE DEMAND WILL RENDER THE PROCEEDING TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE 2022 CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING MAP FAVORED DEMOCRATS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE III OF THE NYS CONSTITUTION (FOURTH DEPT). ​
EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A LEVEL THREE RISK ASSESSMENT, REDUCED TO LEVEL TWO; STANDARD OF PROOF IS PREPONDERANCE NOT CLEAR AND CONVINCING (FOURTH 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

AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER A MOTION NOT RULED UPON BELOW; MATTER REMITTED... PLAINTIFF, WHO PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, SUED THE PRIOR OWNER IN NEGLIGENCE FOR...