IN RE: J.P. (2026)

Order, Family Court, New York County (Valerie A. Pels, J.), entered on or about February 19, 2025 which, after a fact-finding determination that respondent father had neglected the subject child, found that extraordinary circumstances existed to permit petitioner L. R. to petition for custody, and granted her petition for custody of the child, with visitation to the father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Court Act § 1046[a][ii], [b][i];  Matter of Philip M., 82 N.Y.2d 238, 243, 604 N.Y.S.2d 40, 624 N.E.2d 168 [1993] ).  The agency presented evidence that the child sustained multiple red abrasions across the child's buttocks and bruising consistent with a handprint pattern, injuries that were indicative of inflicted trauma (see Matter of Quisbel D.P. [Digna D.P.], 199 A.D.3d 468, 469, 154 N.Y.S.3d 236 [1st Dept 2021];  Matter of Melody Marie A. [Dana B.], 161 A.D.3d 540, 540, 77 N.Y.S.3d 56 [1st Dept 2018] ).  Moreover, since both the father and his wife were the child's caretakers between April 5 and April 10, 2019, ACS was not required to prove whether the father or the wife inflicted the injuries, or whether they acted together (see Matter of Nyheem E. [Jamila G.], 134 A.D.3d 517, 518, 23 N.Y.S.3d 9 [1st Dept 2015] ).

The father failed to rebut the presumption of culpability in the Family Court, and his mere denial of responsibility was insufficient to overcome the agency's prima facie showing (see Matter of A.S. [Vinia D.], 219 A.D.3d 1217, 1218, 195 N.Y.S.3d 472 [1st Dept 2023] ).

Family Court correctly determined that extraordinary circumstances existed to confer standing upon L. R., a maternal cousin, to seek custody of the child.  At the time of the hearing, the child, then eight years old, had resided continuously with L. R. for several years.  During that period, L. R. assumed full responsibility for the child's day-to-day care, including the child's educational, medical, emotional, and financial needs (see Matter of Frances M.L. v. Luis F.O.C., 187 A.D.3d 507, 507, 130 N.Y.S.3d 303 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 905, 2021 WL 505797 [2021] ).  By contrast, the father's contact with the child was inconsistent and, at times, limited to supervised visitation (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] ).  He failed to provide financial support, made no meaningful effort to participate in the child's education or medical care, and did not articulate any concrete plan for resuming custody (see Matter of Prince T.A.M.-F., 224 A.D.3d 509, 509, 205 N.Y.S.3d 350 [1st Dept 2024] ).  The father also declined opportunities to strengthen his relationship with the child, including an offer by ACS to fund travel to North Carolina and an offer by L. R. to permit him to stay in her home during the visit.

Family Court's determination awarding custody of the child to L. R. was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and was in the child's best interests (see Matter of Tawanna W. v. Kamella T., 233 A.D.3d 638, 638–639, 224 N.Y.S.3d 59 [1st Dept 2024];  Salena S. v. Ahmad G., 152 A.D.3d 162, 163, 58 N.Y.S.3d 35 [1st Dept 2017] ).  The evidence established that L. R. provided the child with the stability, consistency, and emotional support that had been absent for much of the child's life.  By the time of the hearing, the child was residing continuously with L. R. for several years in a safe and structured home environment where the child's educational, medical, and emotional needs were consistently met.  The testimony further demonstrated that the child shared a strong emotional bond with L. R. and her family, was thriving in their care, and expressed a desire to remain with them in North Carolina.

We have reviewed the father's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.