Opinion
12048 Dkt. No. V-8710/18 V-08715/18 V-09224/18 V-09225/18 Case No. 2019-004879
10-13-2020
In re FRANCES M.L., Petitioner–Respondent, v. LUIS F.O.C., Respondent–Appellant, Michelle D., et al., Respondents–Respondents. In re Louis F.O.C., Petitioner–Appellant, v. Frances M.L., et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Steven P. Forbes, Jamaica, for appellant. Law Office of Lewis S. Calderson, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Patricia Colella of counsel), attorney for the child,
Steven P. Forbes, Jamaica, for appellant.
Law Office of Lewis S. Calderson, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Patricia Colella of counsel), attorney for the child,
Gische, J.P., Singh, Kennedy, Mendez, JJ.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Gilbert A. Taylor, J.), entered on or about October 15, 2019, which awarded joint legal custody of the subject children to petitioner aunt and respondent father and awarded the aunt primary residential custody of the children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner established the requisite extraordinary circumstances to demonstrate her standing to seek custody of the children, her niece and nephew, after their mother died in February 2018 (see Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys, 40 N.Y.2d 543, 544, 387 N.Y.S.2d 821, 356 N.E.2d 277 [1976] ; Matter of Curry v. Ashby, 129 A.D.2d 310, 311, 517 N.Y.S.2d 990 [1st Dept. 1987] ; Domestic Relations Law § 72[2][a] ). Petitioner had been involved in the children's upbringing throughout their lives, while respondent was largely absent from the children's lives (see Roberta P. v. Vanessa J.P., 140 A.D.3d 457, 31 N.Y.S.3d 507 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 904, 2016 WL 6113618 [2016] ). With the exception of a six-month period in 2017, the children had resided with petitioner since September 2013. In June 2017, when the Administration for Children's Services became involved with their mother, petitioner assumed care of the children and, after their mother's death, became their primary parental figure. Petitioner has provided for all the children's financial, medical, educational, and other needs.
The record supports the court's finding that it is in the children's best interests to be in petitioner's custody (see Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys, 40 N.Y.2d 543, 387 N.Y.S.2d 821, 356 N.E.2d 277 ). Petitioner has supported them for the majority of their lives and provided them with a stable and loving home where they are thriving, all their needs are met, and they wish to remain (see Matter of Ricardo S. v. Carron C., 91 A.D.3d 556, 937 N.Y.S.2d 54 [1st Dept. 2012] ). By contrast, respondent has not been involved in the children's education, medical care, and day-to-day lives; he has never lived with them or cared for them for any length of time (see Matter of Louise E.S. v. W. Stephen S., 64 N.Y.2d 946, 947, 488 N.Y.S.2d 637, 477 N.E.2d 1091 [1985] ).
We have considered appellant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.