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: Cassandra WASHINGTON, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Dean STOKER, Christy Pearo, Respondents–Appellants, Charles Phillips, Sr., Respondent–Respondent.
Family Court properly granted the motion of petitioner to dismiss the petition of respondents Dean Stoker and Christy Pearo (former foster parents) seeking custody of the child of respondent Charles Phillips, Sr. (father). At the time the former foster parents commenced their proceeding, the child was in his father's care and custody, and the former foster parents lacked standing either to initiate their own custody proceeding or to intervene in the custody proceeding initiated by petitioner (see Matter of Minella v. Amhrein, 131 A.D.2d 578, 579). Contrary to their contention, the former foster parents lack standing to assert on behalf of the child the child's right to maintain a relationship with them (see generally Matter of Folsom v. Swan, 41 AD3d 899, 900). We note, moreover, that the Attorney for the Child does not support the position of the former foster parents (see Matter of Harriet II. v.. Alex LL., 292 A.D.2d 92, 94–95). We reject the former foster parents' further contention that they have standing to seek custody because of extraordinary circumstances (see Matter of Marquis B. v.. Alexis H., 110 AD3d 790, 790). Family Court properly concluded that evidence of the father's arrest and incarceration, without more, did not meet the former foster parents' burden of establishing such extraordinary circumstances (see Matter of Aylward v. Bailey, 91 AD3d 1135, 1135–1136). Inasmuch as the former foster parents failed to make that threshold showing, there was no basis for the court to conduct a hearing and make a determination with respect to the child's best interests (see Matter of Jamison v. Chase, 43 AD3d 467, 467; Matter of Kreger v. Newell, 221 A.D.2d 630, 631). Finally, because the former foster parents have no standing in this proceeding, they lack standing to seek dismissal of petitioner's petition, and the court therefore properly denied their cross motion to dismiss that petition (see generally Society of Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 769).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
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: February 07, 2014
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)