Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: CHLOE F.C., a Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Laura A.M., et al., Petitioners-Respondents, v. Steven J.C., Respondent-Appellant.
Order of fact-finding, Family Court, New York County (Hasa A. Kingo, J.), entered on or about October 30, 2023, which, after a hearing, to the extent appealed as limited by the briefs, granted Laura A.M. and Frank A.M.’s petition to be appointed as guardians of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioners met their burden of establishing that extraordinary circumstances existed based upon the cumulative effect of, among other things, the father's voluntary relinquishment of physical custody of the child, his lack of awareness of the child's physical and mental health needs and providers, his failure to even attempt to be involved in her education, his failure to provide for the child financially, and the psychological bond of the child to petitioners (see Matter of Caron C.G.G. [Alicia G. — Jasmine D.], 165 A.D.3d 476, 476, 85 N.Y.S.3d 430 [1st Dept. 2018]; Matter of Cornell S.J. v. Altemease R.J., 164 A.D.3d 1184, 1184, 84 N.Y.S.3d 451 [1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 913, 2019 WL 191970 [2019]). The finding of extraordinary circumstances was also properly based on a number of incidents where the father exhibited a lack of parental judgment, such as his failure to maintain appropriate physical boundaries in front of the child.
The Family Court's determination that awarding guardianship to petitioners was in the child's best interest is supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Court Act § 1055–b[a][ii]; Matter of Jason Jiyell J., 203 A.D.3d 460, 461, 163 N.Y.S.3d 73 [1st Dept. 2022]), and there is no basis to depart from the Family Court's credibility determinations (see Matter of Prince T.A.M.-F., 224 A.D.3d 509, 509, 205 N.Y.S.3d 350 [1st Dept. 2024]). Petitioners established that they provided a stable and loving home for the child and met her physical, emotional, and educational needs. The evidence also established that they had a suitable home and the child thrived in their care. They remained respectful when they needed to communicate about the child and did their best to facilitate the father's parenting time.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2672
Decided: October 03, 2024
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)