You are here: / / Grant of Custody to Maternal Grandparents Rather than Parent Reversed

Grant of Custody to Maternal Grandparents Rather than Parent Reversed

In reversing Family Court’s grant of custody to maternal grandparents, the Second Department wrote:

“In a custody proceeding between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has the superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right due to surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness, or other like extraordinary circumstances” … . “For a third-party nonparent to gain custody of a child, he or she must first prove that extraordinary circumstances exist such that a parent has relinquished his or her superior right to custody” … . “Where extraordinary circumstances are present, the court must then consider the best interests of the child in awarding custody” … .  * * *

We agree with the Family Court that the petitioners, the maternal grandparents of the subject children, satisfied their burden of demonstrating the existence of “extraordinary circumstances,” necessitating a determination as to the best interests of the children … . However, considering the totality of the circumstances in this case .., we find that the Family Court’s determination awarding … custody … to the maternal grandparents is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. The mother’s testimony indicated that, at the time of the hearing, she had abstained from drug use for more than 2½ years. The mother’s testimony also indicated that there were no recent incidents of domestic violence between her and Tardo [the father of one of the children]. Indeed, the Family Court noted in its order that the mother and Tardo are now “clean and sober,” three years having passed between their last instances of drug use and the date of the order, and that “there have been no reports of aggression.” The Family Court placed undue emphasis on the forensic evaluation, which was completed almost two years prior to the court’s determination. Additionally, while the Family Court did acknowledge the nature of James’s wishes, we conclude that the court failed to adequately consider those preferences … . We further note that the attorney for the children supports the mother’s position on appeal, at least insofar as advocating for the mother to have joint custody of both children. Matter of Noonan v Noonan, 2013 NY Slip Op 05824, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BANK’S PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING; RES JUDICATA DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE THE PRIOR ACTION WAS NOT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT ACTION BECAUSE THE STANDING ISSUE IS NOT THE SAME (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY WAS INSUFFICIENT, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO INFLICT SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY WAS SUFFICIENT; CONVICTIONS REDUCED TO ATTEMPTED GANG ASSAULT, ASSAULT AND ROBBERY (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF A REGULAR SNOW REMOVAL ROUTINE IS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).
CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE LANDOWNER FOR A SLIP AND FALL IN THE LESSEE’S SHOPPING CENTER PARKING LOT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE LANDOWNER HAD SOME REPAIR RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE LEASE; ALTHOUGH THE ORIGINAL SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT DESCRIBED THE WRONG PROPERTY ADDRESS, THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, SERVED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, WAS TIMELY UNDER THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
THE ARBITRATION AWARD WAS INDEFINITE AND NONFINAL AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROCESS SERVER WAS AWARE DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS IN THE MILITARY; THE “AFFIX AND MAIL” METHOD OF SERVICE DID NOT OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE WHETHER THE PLYWOOD WHICH FLEXED CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS OVER A THREE-FOOT DEEP HOLE OR TRENCH; LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THREE-FOOT HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN ROOF LEVELS WAS NOT THE TYPE OF ELEVATION HAZARD CONTEMPLATED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (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

Maintenance Should Not Have Been Granted in Absence of Proof of Standard of... Child Should Not Have Been Removed from Foster Parents in Favor of Maternal...