IN RE: Lashawna W. (Anonymous) (2026)

Submitted—January 29, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

W/

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act articles 6 and 10, the maternal grandmother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Frank A. Tantone, J.), dated April 1, 2024.  The order, without a hearing, dismissed the maternal grandmother's petitions for guardianship and sole custody of the subject child.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the maternal grandmother's petitions are reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing in accordance herewith and a new determination thereafter of the petitions.

In March 2023, the maternal grandmother (hereinafter the grandmother) of the child who is the subject of these related proceedings filed a petition pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 to be appointed guardian of the child following the removal of the child from the custody of the mother.  Subsequently, in August 2023, the grandmother filed a separate petition for sole custody of the child.  In an order dated April 1, 2024, the Family Court, without a hearing, dismissed the grandmother's petitions.  The grandmother appeals.

“Custody determinations ․ require a careful and comprehensive evaluation of the material facts and circumstances in order to permit the court to ascertain the optimal result for the child” (S.L. v. J.R., 27 NY3d 558, 563).  Thus, “custody determinations should ‘[g]enerally’ be made ‘only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry’ ” (id., quoting Obey v. Degling, 37 N.Y.2d 768, 770;  see Matter of Dysko v. Dysko, 213 AD3d 847, 848).  “This general rule furthers the substantial interest, shared by the State, the children, and the parents, in ensuring that custody proceedings generate a just and enduring result that, above all else, serves the best interest of a child” (S.L. v. J.R., 27 NY3d at 563;  see Matter of Randall v. Diaz, 208 AD3d 1330, 1331).  “Although the Court of Appeals has ‘decline[d] ․ to fashion a “one size fits all” rule mandating a hearing in every custody case statewide,’ it has cautioned that a court ‘opting to forgo a plenary hearing must take care to clearly articulate which factors were—or were not—material to its determination, and the evidence supporting its decision’ ” (Matter of Corcoran v. Liebowitz, 189 AD3d 1579, 1580–1581, quoting S.L. v. J.R., 27 NY3d at 564).  “The Court of Appeals has, therefore, criticized the ‘undefined and imprecise adequate relevant information standard’ as entailing ‘an unacceptably-high risk’ of resulting in custody determinations that [do not] ‘conform to the best interest of a child’ ” (id. at 1581 [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting S.L. v. J.R., 27 NY3d at 564;  see Matter of Maxwell, 4 N.Y.2d 429, 439).

Here, the Family Court erred in dismissing the grandmother's petitions without a hearing and without inquiring into the best interests of the subject child (see S.L. v. J.R., 27 NY3d at 562;  Matter of Dysko v. Dysko, 213 AD3d at 848).  Moreover, the court's mere reliance upon “adequate relevant information” was improper (S.L. v. J.R., 27 NY3d at 564;  see Matter of Fouyalle v. Jackson, 187 AD3d 907, 908).

Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, to conduct a hearing and for a new determination thereafter of the grandmother's petitions.

DUFFY, J.P., WOOTEN, TAYLOR and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court