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: TODD S., Petitioner–Respondent, v. LAURI B., Respondent–Appellant.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about June 8, 2011, which denied respondent mother's objection to an order of filiation (same court, Matthew Troy, Support Magistrate), entered on or about January 20, 2011, declaring petitioner to be the child's father, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 16, 2010, which denied respondent's motion to dismiss the paternity proceeding on the ground of equitable estoppel, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The evidence presented at the hearing fails to establish that the best interests of the child will be served by estopping petitioner from asserting paternity (see Matter of Gutierrez v. Gutierrez–Delgado, 33 AD3d 1133 [3d Dept 2006] ). The child, who was three years old at the time of the hearing, was shown to be well adjusted, intelligent, and secure in her family structure. The record does not support respondent's contention that the child would be unduly traumatized or that her relationship with her half-sister or maternal uncle would be harmed by her learning the identity of her father.
Notwithstanding the child's close relationship with her maternal uncle, the court appropriately weighed the absence of an alternative father figure or the existence of an operative parent-child relationship that would be disturbed by the establishment of petitioner's paternity (see Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D., 7 NY3d 320, 326 [2006]; Matter of Antonio H. v. Angelic W., 51 AD3d 1022 [2d Dept 2008] ). Nor, under all the circumstances, did petitioner delay inordinately in seeking to establish his paternity (compare Matter of Rudman v. Rubenfeld, 300 A.D.2d 79 [1st Dept 2002]; Terrence M. v. Gale C., 193 A.D.2d 437 [1st Dept 1993], lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 661 [1993]; Matter of Mobley v. Ishmael, 285 A.D.2d 648 [2d Dept 2001]; Matter of Glenn T. v. Donna U., 226 A.D.2d 803 [3rd Dept 1996] ). Family Court appropriately considered the testimony of the competing expert witnesses, and properly excluded the report by respondent's expert.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 17, 2013
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)