You are here: / / DURATION OF ORDERS OF PROTECTION FOR A BIOLOGICAL GRANDFATHER AND A STEPGRANDFATHER...

DURATION OF ORDERS OF PROTECTION FOR A BIOLOGICAL GRANDFATHER AND A STEPGRANDFATHER EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department discussed the allowed duration of orders of protection for a biological grandfather and a stepgrandfather:

Family Ct Act § 1056 (4) provides that “[t]he court may enter an order of protection[,] independently of any other order made under this part, against a person who was a member of the child’s household or a person legally responsible . . . and who is no longer a member of such household at the time of the disposition and who is not related by blood or marriage to the child or a member of the child’s household. [Such] order of protection . . . may be for any period of time up to the child’s eighteenth birthday.” Because Harold J. is the biological grandfather of Annabella and Caleb J., the orders of protection as to these children must be modified to reflect an expiration date … one year from disposition of the matter … .​

The familial relationship between Makayla and Harold J. warrants slightly more analysis as Harold J. is not Makayla’s biological grandfather, but rather is related to her through his son’s marriage to Makayla’s mother. This raises the issue of whether a stepgrandparent is related to a stepgrandchild by marriage for the purposes of Family Ct Act § 1056 (4). We conclude that they are not. This conclusion is supported by the specific language in the statute, “related by . . . marriage” … , rather than the broader and more inclusive concept of “affinity,” which is used elsewhere in the Family Ct Act … . Further, a stepgrandparent has no enforceable legal right to have contact with a stepgrandchild as a stepgrandparent lacks standing to pursue visitation … . Thus, although Family Ct Act § 1056 (4) limits the duration of orders of protection against a stepparent who is related to a child by and through his or her own marriage to the child’s mother or father, these limitations do not apply to a stepgrandparent, whose relationship to the child is attenuated. Therefore, because Harold J.’s relationship to Makayla is not established by his own marriage, but rather through his son’s marriage, it was statutorily permissible, in this regard, for Family Court to issue an order of protection until Makayla’s eighteenth birthday. Our analysis does not end here, however, as Family Ct Act § 1056 (4) prohibits orders of protection until a child’s eighteenth birthday if the order is against someone who is related by blood or marriage to a member of the child’s household. Therefore, if, at the time of disposition, Makayla resided in the same household as Annabella and Caleb J., the order of protection as to Makayla could not exceed one year … . Inasmuch as we cannot discern from the record whether this is the case, the matter must be remitted for the purpose of making this determination. Matter of Makayla I. (Caleb K.), 2018 NY Slip Op 04047, Third Dept 6-7-18

FAMILY LAW (ORDERS OF PROTECTION, DURATION OF ORDERS OF PROTECTION FOR A BIOLOGICAL GRANDFATHER AND A STEPGRANDFATHER EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/ORDERS OF PROTECTION (FAMILY LAW, DURATION OF ORDERS OF PROTECTION FOR A BIOLOGICAL GRANDFATHER AND A STEPGRANDFATHER EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
TRADE SECRET EXEMPTION DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF DISCLOSURE WOULD RESULT IN COMPETITIVE INJURY.
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO HEARINGS ON HER SECOND MOTION TO VACATE HER CONVICTION ON THE GROUNDS OF NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, ACTUAL INNOCENCE AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (THIRD DEPT).
MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISCONTINUE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (THIRD DEPT).
OVERRULING PRECEDENT, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT NOW ACCEPTS THE “CATALYST THEORY” WHICH, UNDER THE NYS EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (EAJA), ALLOWS THE RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY’S FEES BY A PARTY WHO INSTIGATES LITIGATION AGAINST THE STATE AND THE STATE VOLUNTARILY GRANTS THE SOUGHT RELIEF WITHOUT FUTHER LITIGATION; THE “CATALYST THEORY” APPLIES ONLY WHERE THE PARTY “PREVAILS IN WHOLE,” NOT WHERE THE PARTY HAS ONLY “SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED” (THIRD DEPT).
APPELLANT WAS NOT AGGRIEVED BY SUPREME COURT’S DECISION WHICH DENIED HER MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE PENDING FURTHER DISCOVERY; THEREFORE THE APPEAL MUST BE DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
CHILD DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, MOTHER SOUGHT A MODIFICATION OF VISITATION WITH FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD’S REACTIONS TO VISITS WITH FATHER, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD DID NOT MAKE A SUFFICIENT RECORD ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES THROUGH QUESTIONING THE CHILD AND CROSS-EXAMINING MOTHER (THIRD DEPT).
THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES’ (DCJS’S) DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER WAS TERMINATED “FOR CAUSE” WAS CONTRADICTED BY THE FACTS; THE DETERMINATION WAS REVERSED AS “ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS” (THIRD DEPT).
THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW THE COURT TO ALLOCATE ALL THE PROCEEDS OF AN INSURANCE POLICY TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, RESPONDENT, A FORMER MEMBER OF AN INSOLVENT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST WHICH HAD SETTLED WITH THE BOARD, WAS ENTITLED TO SOME OF THE PROCEEDS AND AN ACCOUNTING PURSUANT TO CPLR 7702 (THIRD 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

PROVISION OF THE EDUCATION LAW WHICH ALLOWS THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO... SUSPENDED JUDGMENT COMMITTING RESPONDENT TO JAIL FOR FAILURE TO MAKE CHILD SUPPORT...