New York Family Law Blog
In New York, courts decide child custody cases based on what is in the best interests of the child. When a non-parent seeks custody, the court must first decide if that person has legal standing. If standing is found, the court then considers many factors, including the child’s past and present care, the fitness of each party, and the strength of their relationships with the child. In Matter of Bhanmattie H. v. Roxanne H., the Family Court considered whether a grandmother who had cared for a child most of her life should receive custody after the child’s father passed away and the mother regained physical possession of the child.
Background Facts
Sydney, the child at the center of the case, lived in her paternal grandparents’ home from the time she was an infant. Although both parents initially lived there, the mother moved out when Sydney was very young. She briefly took Sydney with her but returned her to the father within two weeks. Sydney then continued living with her father and paternal grandmother.
When the parents divorced in 2011, the mother agreed to give the father primary residential custody. She rarely exercised her visitation rights and provided little to no financial support for Sydney.
After the father passed away in December 2014, the paternal grandmother continued caring for Sydney. However, the day after Christmas, the mother arrived unannounced and took Sydney to live with her and her new family. The mother then cut off contact between Sydney and the grandmother.
The grandmother filed for custody in June 2016. The court found that she had standing to pursue custody. During visits ordered by the court, Sydney told her grandmother that she was unhappy and felt mistreated in her mother’s home. She described arguments and being blamed for problems. Sydney expressed a desire to return to live with her grandmother.
In July 2016, the court temporarily placed Sydney back with her grandmother. A therapeutic visitation plan between Sydney and her mother was ordered in January 2017, but Sydney refused to participate. Sydney remained in the grandmother’s home and showed signs of stability and well-being.
Question Before the Court
Whether Sydney’s biological mother or her paternal grandmother should be awarded primary residential and legal custody.
Court’s Decision
The court awarded primary residential and legal custody of Sydney to the paternal grandmother. The court also vacated a prior stay-away order against the mother and stated that the mother could attempt to schedule visits through the grandmother or return to court to request court-ordered visitation.
Discussion
In custody cases under Article 6 of the Family Court Act, the court must consider what is in the best interests of the child. The court looks at factors such as the quality of care provided by each party, their relationship with the child, the stability of the home environment, and the history of involvement in the child’s life.
In this case, the court found that the grandmother had been Sydney’s main caregiver since infancy. The mother had a limited role in Sydney’s upbringing. Although she had visitation rights, she rarely used them. She did not financially support Sydney and did not challenge the custody arrangement set during the divorce.
When the father died, the mother took Sydney without warning and blocked all contact between the grandmother and Sydney. This led to the grandmother filing for custody. The court credited the grandmother’s testimony about Sydney’s care and about the child’s statements expressing unhappiness in her mother’s home.
The mother’s testimony lacked detail about her relationship with Sydney. She did not explain her past absence from the child’s life or why she did not take legal action to change custody or enforce visitation. The court found that the mother failed to show that she was currently the better option for primary custody.
The court also considered the length of time Sydney had spent living with her grandmother and the strong bond that had developed. Sydney lived with her grandmother almost continuously from infancy through age twelve. Her return to the grandmother’s home after a brief time with her mother had led to better emotional well-being.
The court noted that the grandmother had consistently provided for Sydney’s needs and had a strong relationship with her. Although the mother was recognized as the child’s biological parent, her absence and lack of involvement weakened her position in the custody dispute.
Finally, the court emphasized that the mother was free to work out a visitation plan with the grandmother or return to court for a formal order. This allowed for the possibility of building a future relationship while prioritizing the child’s current stability and well-being.
Conclusion
In Matter of Bhanmattie H. v. Roxanne H., the court decided that it was in the child’s best interests to remain in the care of the paternal grandmother. The decision was based on the history of the grandmother’s consistent caregiving, the mother’s limited involvement, and the child’s own expressed wishes.
In New York, grandparents’ rights are limited, and courts will only consider granting custody or visitation when specific legal standards are met, including showing extraordinary circumstances. Child custody cases can be complex, especially when non-parents are involved. If you are involved in a custody dispute or seeking custody of a child, contact an experienced New York child custody lawyer at Stephen Bilkis & Associates to learn more about your legal options.