You are here: / / MOTHER’S LEAVING THE CHILD WITH THE PETITIONERS, THE CHILD’S...

MOTHER’S LEAVING THE CHILD WITH THE PETITIONERS, THE CHILD’S BROTHER AND SISTER-IN-LAW, FOR A LITTLE MORE THAN A MONTH DID NOT MEET THE “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” STANDARD FOR THE AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY TO MOTHER AND PETITIONERS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support the award of joint custody of the child shared by mother and the child’s brother and sister-in-law (petitioners). The extraordinary circumstances required to award custody to nonparents were not demonstrated. Mother had left the child with the petitioners for a little more than a month before seeking the child’s return:

… [T]he court’s determination to award petitioners joint custody of the child along with herself and the father lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record inasmuch as petitioners failed to establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances. ” ‘[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 . . . The nonparent has the burden of proving that extraordinary circumstances exist, and until such circumstances are shown, the court does not reach the issue of the best interests of the child’ ” … . “A finding of extraordinary circumstances is rare, and the circumstances must be such that they ‘drastically affect the welfare of the child’ ” … . Such circumstances are not established by a mere showing that the nonparent “could do a better job of raising the child” … . Where a nonparent fails to establish extraordinary circumstances, “the inquiry ends” … .

… We conclude that petitioners failed to meet their burden of establishing that the mother “relinquished her superior right to custody” … . … [T]he mother’s decision to leave the child with petitioners for a little over a month before seeking his return did not amount to the type of prolonged separation that would evidence the mother’s abandonment of the child or her intent to do so … . Matter of Adams v John, 2024 NY Slip Op 02404, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: Here the child’s brother and sister-in-law were awarded joint custody of the child with mother after mother left the child with the petitioners for a little more than a month. The “extraordinary circumstances” standard for the award of custody to nonparents was not met.

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT A FINE IS PART OF THE SENTENCE RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S PROBATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED ABSENT A HEARING OR AN ADMISSION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE POLICE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED THE DEFENDANT POINTED QUESTIONS IN THIS STREET STOP SCENARIO; THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM A RULING WHICH GRANTED RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE ALTERNATIVE BUT DENIED THE MORE COMPLETE RELIEF REQUESTED, EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FINDING THAT PETITIONER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND REQUIRED A REGIMEN OF STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) (FOURTH DEPT).
THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY WHEN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED, THE OFFICER TOOK PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES AND THEREFORE HIS CONDUCT DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE SAFETY OF OTHERS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION BUT A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR ALLOWING PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE TO COME IN WITHOUT A STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE TWO THYROID SURGERIES WERE PERFORMED BY THE SAME DOCTOR, THE 2005 SURGERY AND THE 2010 SURGERY WERE DISCRETE EVENTS; THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS NOT TOLLED BY THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (FOURTH DEPT).
Violation of an Industrial Code Provision Does Not Conclusively Establish Negligence in a Labor Law 241 (6) Action

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

IN THIS PARTITION ACTION, THERE WAS NO PENDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND... AN ACTION AGAINST A CORPORATION AND AN ACTION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL PRINCIPALS...