When parents lose custody of their children, the goal of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) is always to permanently place the children in stable family environment. While reunification with bio parents is the best case scenario, adoption is also a positive outcome. Carter v. Admin. for Children’s Servs., 176 A.D.3d 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019) involves a custody dispute concerning a child removed from his mother’s care after her arrest. The maternal grandparents, residing in Maine, sought custody of the child, but their petition was dismissed after the mother surrendered her parental rights. The child was then placed for adoption with a foster family.
Background Facts
In January 2016, ACS removed a seven-month-old child from his mother’s care following her arrest for prostitution and child endangerment. After the removal, the child was placed in a nonkinship foster family. The mother faced a neglect proceeding in Family Court, which resulted in a finding of neglect against her. The finding was entered without her admission of neglect but with her consent.
Meanwhile, the maternal grandparents, who lived in Maine and had already adopted the child’s older sibling, filed a petition seeking custody of the child. While their petition was pending, ACS initiated a termination of parental rights proceeding against the mother. The mother, however, decided to surrender her parental rights under the condition that the foster parents would adopt the child. Upon learning of this conditional surrender, the Family Court dismissed the grandparents’ custody petition without prejudice. The dismissal allowed the grandparents the opportunity to intervene in the termination proceeding if the mother chose not to surrender her parental rights.
The grandparents did not intend to adopt the child but were seeking custody. Once the mother executed the conditional surrender of her parental rights, the direction of the case changed, leading to further proceedings.
Question Before the Court
Whether the maternal grandparents’ custody petition should be dismissed in light of the mother’s conditional surrender of her parental rights, which cleared the way for the foster parents to adopt the child.
Court’s Decision
The Family Court dismissed the maternal grandparents’ custody petition following the mother’s execution of the conditional surrender of her parental rights. The court based its decision on legal principles that dictate nonparent relatives, such as grandparents, do not have priority over adoptive parents selected by an authorized agency when a child is being placed for adoption. The grandparents did not seek to adopt the child themselves, and the mother’s surrender was conditioned on the adoption by the foster parents. Consequently, the court found no basis for the grandparents to challenge the adoption.
The court referred to established case law in support of its decision, including Matter of Ella J. v. Iva J., Matter of Peter L., and Matter of El v. Administration for Children’s Services-Queens. These cases affirm that nonparent relatives do not have a superior right to custody over adoptive parents chosen by the agency, particularly when the adoption is proceeding according to the terms of a parental surrender.
Discussion
In cases where a parent surrenders their rights, as the mother did here, the child is placed for adoption through an authorized agency. The agency’s selection of adoptive parents takes precedence over claims from nonparent relatives, such as grandparents, who may wish to seek custody.
In this case, ACS facilitated the child’s placement with foster parents and initiated proceedings to terminate the mother’s parental rights. Although the grandparents sought custody of the child, they did not take steps to adopt him. When the mother executed a conditional surrender of her parental rights, the child was legally freed for adoption by the foster parents, and this diminished the grandparents’ legal standing to pursue custody.
The court’s decision reflects a clear distinction between custody and adoption in these types of cases. While relatives may have an interest in a child’s welfare, the law prioritizes the adoption plan set by the agency when parental rights are surrendered or terminated. In New York, the law encourages permanency for children in foster care by facilitating adoptions as quickly as possible. Once a parent surrenders their rights, the focus shifts to the adoption process, and nonparent relatives must demonstrate a compelling reason if they seek to disrupt that process.
The grandparents’ failure to seek adoption of the child further weakened their case. New York courts have consistently ruled that nonparent relatives do not have automatic priority over adoptive parents, especially when the adoptive placement aligns with the agency’s plan for the child’s long-term care. The court found that there was no legal basis to allow the grandparents’ custody petition to proceed, given the mother’s conditional surrender and the foster parents’ willingness to adopt the child.
Conclusion
The court’s decision to dismiss the maternal grandparents’ custody petition illustrates the legal principles governing the rights of nonparent relatives in child custody and adoption cases. Once a parent surrenders their rights to a child, the agency’s adoption plan takes precedence, and nonparent relatives, such as grandparents, do not automatically have custody rights over the adoptive parents chosen by the agency. In this case, the court dismissed the grandparents’ petition because they sought custody but not adoption. The mother’s surrender of her parental rights to the foster parents ultimately decided the child’s future placement. The court’s decision reflects the importance of finding stability and permanency for children who have been placed in foster care.
If you are involved in a child custody or adoption case and have questions about your rights, contact an experienced Queens grandparent’s rights lawyer at Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Our team can provide you with legal guidance to protect your interests and help you navigate the complex legal process involved.