Opinion
02-18-2015
In the Matter of Judy BAILEY, appellant, v. Curtis CARR, et al., respondents.
Linda C. Braunsberg, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant. Leighton M. Jackson, New York, N.Y., for respondent Curtis Carr. Edward E. Caesar, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the child Curtis A. S. Robert Marinelli, New York, N.Y., attorney for the child David T.S. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Susan M. Cordaro and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the child Cheyenne P.S.
Linda C. Braunsberg, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant.
Leighton M. Jackson, New York, N.Y., for respondent Curtis Carr.
Edward E. Caesar, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the child Curtis A. S.
Robert Marinelli, New York, N.Y., attorney for the child David T.S.
Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Susan M. Cordaro and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the child Cheyenne P.S.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Opinion Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Michael L. Katz, J.), dated May 31, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the motion of the subject children, made at the close of the grandmother's case at a hearing on the issue of extraordinary circumstances, to dismiss the grandmother's custody petition for lack of standing.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In a child custody dispute between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has a 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 other 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 Diana B. v. Lorry B., 111 A.D.3d 927, 927–928, 976 N.Y.S.2d 115 ; Matter of North v. Yeagley, 96 A.D.3d 949, 950, 946 N.Y.S.2d 508 ; Matter of Flores v. Flores, 91 A.D.3d 869, 936 N.Y.S.2d 676 ; Matter of Ruiz v. Travis, 84 A.D.3d 1242, 924 N.Y.S.2d 456 ; Matter of LaBorde v. Pennington, 60 A.D.3d 950, 876 N.Y.S.2d 87 ). Only if the nonparent meets this burden does the court determine whether the best interests of the child warrant awarding custody to the nonparent (see Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys, 40 N.Y.2d at 548, 387 N.Y.S.2d 821, 356 N.E.2d 277 ; Matter of Diana B. v. Lorry B., 111 A.D.3d at 928, 976 N.Y.S.2d 115 ; Matter of Revis v. Marzan, 100 A.D.3d 1004, 954 N.Y.S.2d 217 ; Matter of North v. Yeagley, 96 A.D.3d at 950, 946 N.Y.S.2d 508 ). Here, the Family Court's determination that the grandmother failed to establish extraordinary circumstances conferring standing to seek custody of the subject children was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Jiminez v. Jiminez, 57 A.D.3d 781, 868 N.Y.S.2d 895 ). Contrary to the grandmother's contention, she failed to establish extraordinary circumstances by virtue of an extended disruption of custody pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72(2) (see Matter of Rush v. Roscoe, 99 A.D.3d 1053, 953 N.Y.S.2d 308 ; Matter of Tolbert v. Scott, 42 A.D.3d 548, 840 N.Y.S.2d 112 ; cf. Matter of DiBenedetto v. DiBenedetto, 108 A.D.3d 531, 968 N.Y.S.2d 194 ; Matter of Wright v. Wright, 81 A.D.3d 740, 741, 916 N.Y.S.2d 203 ; Matter of Gilchrest v. Patterson, 55 A.D.3d 833, 866 N.Y.S.2d 296 ). Moreover, the grandmother failed to show that either the father of two of the children or the father of the third child provided unstable and unsafe living situations for the children (cf. Matter of Diana B. v. Lorry B., 111 A.D.3d at 928, 976 N.Y.S.2d 115 ; Matter of North v. Yeagley, 96 A.D.3d 949, 946 N.Y.S.2d 508 ). A parent cannot be displaced merely because another person would do a “better job” of raising the child (Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys, 40 N.Y.2d at 548, 387 N.Y.S.2d 821, 356 N.E.2d 277 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Corey L. v. Martin L., 45 N.Y.2d 383, 391, 408 N.Y.S.2d 439, 380 N.E.2d 266 ; Matter of Aylward v. Bailey, 91 A.D.3d 1135, 938 N.Y.S.2d 215 ; Matter of McGraw v. McGraw, 258 A.D.2d 464, 685 N.Y.S.2d 251 ), or because the child has bonded psychologically with the nonparent (see Matter of Jody H. v. Lynn M., 43 A.D.3d 1318, 845 N.Y.S.2d 579 ; Matter of Esposito v. Shannon, 32 A.D.3d 471, 472–473, 823 N.Y.S.2d 159 ; Matter of Cambridge v. Cambridge, 13 A.D.3d 443, 786 N.Y.S.2d 558 ).
The grandmother's contention that she was deprived of a fair hearing by the Family Court's failure to direct forensic evaluations or to hold in camera interviews with the children is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, the Family Court possessed sufficient information to enable it to render its determination without forensic evaluations or in camera interviews (see Matter of Andracchi v. Reetz, 106 A.D.3d 734, 966 N.Y.S.2d 102 ; Matter of Solovay v. Solovay, 94 A.D.3d 898, 900, 941 N.Y.S.2d 712 ; Matter of Rhodie v. Nathan, 67 A.D.3d 687, 888 N.Y.S.2d 159 ), and the grandmother was not deprived of a fair hearing.
The grandmother's remaining contention is without merit.