Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Undine JAMISON, petitioner-respondent, v. Tracy Ann CHASE, appellant, et al., respondent (and a related proceeding).
In related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), dated April 12, 2006, which, after a hearing, granted the paternal grandmother's petition for custody of the subject children, and in effect, denied her petition for custody of the subject children.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the paternal grandmother's petition for custody is denied, the mother's petition for custody is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing to determine the paternal grandmother's visitation rights.
As 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 (see Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys, 40 N.Y.2d 543, 548, 387 N.Y.S.2d 821, 356 N.E.2d 277; Matter of Wilson v. Smith, 24 A.D.3d 562, 563, 808 N.Y.S.2d 263). The burden of proof is on the nonparent to prove such extraordinary circumstances (see Matter of Wilson v. Smith, supra; Matter of Kreger v. Newell, 221 A.D.2d 630, 630-631, 634 N.Y.S.2d 174; Matter of Katherine D. v. Christine D., 187 A.D.2d 587, 588, 589 N.Y.S.2d 1002). Absent a finding of extraordinary circumstances, a determination of what is in the best interests of the child is not triggered (see Matter of Wilson v. Smith, supra; Matter of Kreger v. Newell, supra; Matter of Katherine D. v. Christine D., supra ).
While we recognize that the Family Court had the opportunity to hear directly from the parties to this matter, and its determination should therefore be accorded deference on appeal, our “authority in custody matters is as broad as that of the trial court” (Matter of Rosiana C. v. Pierre S., 191 A.D.2d 432, 433, 594 N.Y.S.2d 316; see Matter of Esposito v. Shannon, 32 A.D.3d 471, 474, 823 N.Y.S.2d 159). A review of the evidence reveals that the paternal grandmother failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances (cf. Matter of Jacqueline Sharon L. v. Pamela G., 26 A.D.3d 250, 810 N.Y.S.2d 143). Accordingly, the Family Court erred in granting the paternal grandmother's petition for custody based upon its determination that it was in the children's best interests, and in, in effect, denying the mother's petition for custody of the subject children. Accordingly, the order must be reversed and custody awarded to the mother, and we remit the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing to determine the paternal grandmother's visitation rights.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: August 21, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)