IN RE: Tyreek DAVIS (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Caroline Piela Cohen, J.), dated June 5, 2023.  The order dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner is the biological father of three children.  In June 2023, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas of corpus, seeking custody of the children or, in the alternative, parental access with them.  By order dated June 5, 2023, the Family Court dismissed the petition.  The petitioner appeals.

“[The] Family Court has jurisdiction to determine custody [and parental access] in habeas corpus proceedings (Family Ct Act § 651[b]), and section 70(a) of the Domestic Relations Law allows a parent to apply for habeas relief for their minor child and authorizes the court to award custody [or parental access], based on the best interest of the child, and what will best promote the child's welfare and happiness” (Matter of Celinette H.H. v. Michelle R., 40 N.Y.3d 1047, 1049, 201 N.Y.S.3d 317, 224 N.E.3d 507 [Rivera, J., dissenting] [alterations and internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A.C.C., 28 N.Y.3d 1, 18, 39 N.Y.S.3d 89, 61 N.E.3d 488;  Matter of Melinda D., 31 A.D.3d 24, 29–30, 815 N.Y.S.2d 644).  “Only a ‘parent’ may petition for custody or parental access under Domestic Relations Law § 70” (Matter of Paese v. Paese, 175 A.D.3d 502, 503–504, 108 N.Y.S.3d 458 [alterations and internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Wlock v. King, 181 A.D.3d 1341, 1343, 122 N.Y.S.3d 838).  Here, the petitioner has conceded that his parental rights were terminated, and that the children were adopted by one or more nonparties, before he filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  He therefore lacked standing, as a parent, to seek custody of or parental access with the children (see Matter of Mehmeti v. Dautaj, 198 A.D.3d 781, 782, 152 N.Y.S.3d 628;  Matter of Mee Yung Park v. Lucente, 148 A.D.3d 1154, 1154, 49 N.Y.S.3d 312;  Matter of Melinda D., 31 A.D.3d at 27–29, 815 N.Y.S.2d 644).

The petitioner's remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

DILLON, J.P., WOOTEN, VOUTSINAS and VENTURA, JJ., concur.