IN RE: COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES ON BEHALF OF JULISSA Y. S.-C. (2019)

In this paternity proceeding under article 5 of the Family Court Act, respondent failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the mother's husband acted as the child's father to such an extent that a biological paternity test “is not in the best interests of the child on the basis of ․ equitable estoppel” (Family Court Act § 532;  see Matter of Juanita A. v. Kenneth Mark N., 15 N.Y.3d 1, 904 N.Y.S.2d 293, 930 N.E.2d 214 [2010];  Matter of Cecil R. v. Rachel A., 102 A.D.3d 545, 958 N.Y.S.2d 371 [1st Dept. 2013] ).  There is no evidence that the husband has played a significant role in raising, nurturing or caring for the child, let alone that he ever had an operative parent-child relationship with him (see Matter of Gutierrez v. Gutierrez–Delgado, 33 A.D.3d 1133, 1135, 823 N.Y.S.2d 248 [3d Dept. 2006] ).  Indeed, at the estoppel hearing, respondent did not even attempt to elicit any testimony from the mother about the child's relationship with her husband.  Instead, his entire case was focused on his own relationship with the mother and the fact that he had no relationship with the child.

Respondent failed to demonstrate that the husband, who married the mother after the child was born and was not named on the child's birth certificate, was a necessary party (see Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v. Dimarcus C., 94 A.D.3d 538, 942 N.Y.S.2d 339 [1st Dept. 2012] ).

We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.