IN RE: VIOLA J. (Anonymous) (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ilana Gruebel, J.), dated November 22, 2024, (2) an order of the same court dated December 6, 2024, and (3) an order of the same court also dated December 6, 2024.  The order dated November 22, 2024, awarded temporary legal and physical custody of the child to the maternal grandmother.  The first order dated December 6, 2024, after a hearing, granted the maternal grandmother's petition for sole legal and physical custody of the child, limited the mother's parental access with the child to supervised parental access, and directed the issuance of a final order of protection in favor of the maternal grandmother and the child and against the mother for a period of two years.  The second order dated December 6, 2024, granted the same relief to the maternal grandmother, limited the mother's parental access with the child to supervised parental access, and directed the issuance of a final order of protection in favor of the maternal grandmother and the child and against the mother for a period of two years.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated November 22, 2024, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the orders dated December 6, 2024;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the orders dated December 6, 2024, are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner (hereinafter the maternal grandmother) is the maternal grandmother of a child.  In August 2022, while a neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 was pending against the mother, the maternal grandmother commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for sole legal and physical custody of the child, alleging that the mother was unfit and had persistently neglected the child.  The child had been in the care and custody of the maternal grandmother since July 2021after he was placed following an order of removal.  In an order dated November 22, 2024, the Family Court awarded temporary legal and physical custody of the child to the maternal grandmother.  Thereafter, in an order dated December 6, 2024, after a hearing, the court granted the maternal grandmother's petition for sole legal and physical custody of the child, limited the mother's parental access with the child to supervised parental access, and directed the issuance of a final order of protection in favor of the maternal grandmother and the child and against the mother for a period of two years.  In a second order dated December 6, 2024, the court granted the same relief to the maternal grandmother, limited the mother's parental access with the child to supervised parental access, and directed the issuance of a final order of protection in favor of the maternal grandmother and the child and against the mother for a period of two years.  The mother appeals.

The Family Court properly determined that the maternal grandmother established the existence of extraordinary circumstances such that the mother relinquished her superior right to custody of the child.  In a child custody dispute between a parent and a nonparent, “the parent has the superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right due to surrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, unfitness, or similar extraordinary circumstances” (Matter of Jamison v. Britton, 141 A.D.3d 522, 524, 35 N.Y.S.3d 256;  see Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys, 40 N.Y.2d 543, 546, 387 N.Y.S.2d 821, 356 N.E.2d 277).  Here, the evidence established the mother's persistent neglect of the child based, inter alia, on her inability to control her temper, words, and actions in front of the child and her failure to abide by the supervising agency's rules (see Matter of Pierce v. Joyner, 240 A.D.3d 786, 787, 235 N.Y.S.3d 469).  Moreover, the maternal grandmother demonstrated that she had amply provided for the child's physical, emotional, and financial needs for an extended period of time (see Matter of Robinson v. McNair, 90 A.D.3d 759, 760, 934 N.Y.S.2d 232).

Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's determination that an award of sole legal and physical custody of the child to the maternal grandmother was in the child's best interests has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Madelyn E.P. [Christine L.-B.—Kevin O.], 196 A.D.3d 489, 151 N.Y.S.3d 410;  Matter of Brown v. Elfaiz, 191 A.D.3d 871, 141 N.Y.S.3d 128).  The record established that the child had been in the custody of the maternal grandmother for more than two years and the maternal grandmother had proven herself to be a stable influence in the child's life by being the child's primary caregiver and providing for his food, clothing, medical, and dental needs (see Matter of Pierce v. Joyner, 240 A.D.3d at 787, 235 N.Y.S.3d 469).  Accordingly, the court properly granted the maternal grandmother's petition for sole legal and physical custody of the child.

The Family Court properly limited the mother's parental access with the child to supervised parental access.  Determinations regarding parental access should be based on the best interests of the child under the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260;  Matter of Skeete v. Hamilton, 78 A.D.3d 1187, 911 N.Y.S.2d 667).  Supervised parental access is appropriate only where it is established that unsupervised parental access would be detrimental to the child (see Liverance v. Liverance, 148 A.D.3d 695, 695, 47 N.Y.S.3d 713;  Matter of Mikell v. Bermejo, 139 A.D.3d 954, 955, 31 N.Y.S.3d 581).  Here, the record established that the mother had made increasingly threatening statements to both the maternal grandmother and the child.  Accordingly, the court's determination that parental access should be supervised is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and should not be disturbed (see Matter of Tecza v. Alija, 138 A.D.3d 872, 30 N.Y.S.3d 174;  Matter of Bonet v. Bonet, 121 A.D.3d 978, 978, 995 N.Y.S.2d 122).  For the same reasons, the court also properly directed the issuance of a final order of protection in favor of the maternal grandmother and the child and against the mother for a period of two years.

The mother's remaining contention is without merit.

DILLON, J.P., DOWLING, LANDICINO and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.