New York Law Review

Tag: Visitation

  • Matter of Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A.C.C., 32 N.Y.3d 1 (2018): Redefining “Parent” for Custody and Visitation Rights

    32 N.Y.3d 1 (2018)

    A non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing to seek visitation and custody under Domestic Relations Law § 70 if they can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and raise the child together.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals overruled its prior decision in Matter of Alison D. v. Virginia M., which held that only biological or adoptive parents had standing to seek custody or visitation rights. The court consolidated two cases, Matter of Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A.C.C. and Matter of Estrellita A. v. Jennifer L.D., where same-sex partners sought custody or visitation of children to whom they were not biologically related. The Court of Appeals held that the definition of “parent” in Domestic Relations Law § 70 should be expanded. Now a non-biological or non-adoptive parent can obtain standing if they can prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of an agreement with the biological parent to conceive and raise a child as co-parents.

    Facts

    Matter of Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A.C.C.: The parties, a same-sex couple, jointly decided to have a child. The respondent became pregnant through artificial insemination. The petitioner was actively involved during the pregnancy, birth, and subsequent upbringing of the child. After the relationship ended, the respondent terminated the petitioner’s contact with the child. The petitioner sought joint custody and visitation. The Family Court dismissed the petition, citing Alison D.

    Matter of Estrellita A. v. Jennifer L.D.: The parties, a same-sex couple, agreed to have a child. The respondent bore the child through artificial insemination. The petitioner participated actively in the child’s life. After the relationship ended, the petitioner sought visitation. The respondent initially obtained child support from the petitioner, arguing that the petitioner was a parent. Then, the respondent moved to dismiss the visitation petition, citing Alison D. The Family Court denied the motion, applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel based on the prior child support determination.

    Procedural History

    Brooke S.B.: The Family Court dismissed the petition for lack of standing, relying on Alison D. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Estrellita A.: The Family Court denied the respondent’s motion to dismiss, finding judicial estoppel. The Appellate Division affirmed, also finding judicial estoppel. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether a non-biological, non-adoptive parent has standing to seek custody or visitation under Domestic Relations Law § 70.

    2. Whether the ruling in Alison D. should be overruled.

    Holding

    1. Yes, a non-biological, non-adoptive parent can obtain standing if there was a pre-conception agreement to conceive and raise the child as co-parents.

    2. Yes, the court overruled Alison D.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court acknowledged that its prior decision in Alison D., which limited standing to biological or adoptive parents, was no longer workable due to evolving family structures and legal recognition of same-sex relationships. The court cited the need to consider the best interests of the child, who could suffer from being separated from a primary attachment figure, and the inequity created by Alison D., especially in light of the enactment of same-sex marriage. The Court emphasized the historic use of equity powers. The Court reasoned that the narrow definition of “parent” in Alison D. was inconsistent with the state’s broader equitable powers to ensure that custody and visitation matters served the best interests of the child. The court found that Alison D.’s “bright-line” rule had led to unfair outcomes for children in non-traditional families. The court also held that the right to marry provides benefits not only for same-sex couples, but also the children being raised by those couples.

    The Court held that a non-biological, non-adoptive parent may obtain standing to petition for custody or visitation under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) if they prove by clear and convincing evidence an agreement with the biological parent to conceive and raise the child as co-parents. This is a “narrow” and carefully constructed approach. The court declined to adopt a functional test for all situations.

    Practical Implications

    Attorneys handling custody and visitation cases should now assess whether the parties had a pre-conception agreement to conceive and raise the child. This case broadens the class of individuals who can seek custody or visitation, particularly in same-sex and unmarried couple situations. Legal practice in this area must now consider these factors, in determining standing under Domestic Relations Law § 70. The real-world impact of this decision is to make access to courts more equitable and to provide increased stability and potential parental figures to children.

    This ruling creates a significant shift in the approach to standing in custody and visitation cases and underscores the importance of pre-conception planning and agreements for prospective parents.

  • Matter of Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A.C.C., 28 N.Y.3d 1 (2016): Standing for Non-Biological Parents in Custody and Visitation Disputes

    <strong><em>Matter of Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A.C.C.</em>, 28 N.Y.3d 1 (2016)</em></strong>

    A non-biological, non-adoptive parent has standing to seek custody or visitation under Domestic Relations Law § 70 if they can prove by clear and convincing evidence that they agreed with the biological parent to conceive a child and raise the child together as co-parents.

    <p><strong>Summary</strong></p>

    The New York Court of Appeals overruled its prior decision in <em>Matter of Alison D. v. Virginia M.</em> to address the evolving definition of “parent” in custody and visitation cases. The Court held that a non-biological parent can establish standing to seek custody or visitation if they can demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that there was an agreement with the biological parent to conceive and raise the child as co-parents. The Court emphasized the importance of the child’s best interests and the need to adapt legal principles to reflect contemporary family structures. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s decision in one case and affirmed in another based on this new standard and the application of judicial estoppel.

    <p><strong>Facts</strong></p>

    In <em>Brooke S.B.</em>, a same-sex couple decided to have a child through artificial insemination. The non-biological partner, Brooke, was actively involved in the pregnancy and the child’s upbringing. The couple later separated, and Elizabeth, the biological mother, denied Brooke visitation. In <em>Estrellita A.</em>, another same-sex couple also decided to have a child through artificial insemination. After the couple separated, Estrellita sought visitation. In a prior child support proceeding, Jennifer, the biological mother, successfully argued that Estrellita was a parent, thus estopping her from later denying Estrellita’s parental status for visitation.

    <p><strong>Procedural History</strong></p>

    In <em>Brooke S.B.</em>, the Family Court dismissed Brooke’s petition for lack of standing based on <em>Alison D.</em>. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal. In <em>Estrellita A.</em>, Family Court initially dismissed Estrellita’s visitation petition based on <em>Alison D.</em>. Then, Family Court granted visitation, finding judicial estoppel. The Appellate Division affirmed, and the New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    <p><strong>Issue(s)</strong></p>

    1. Whether a non-biological, non-adoptive parent has standing to seek custody or visitation under Domestic Relations Law § 70.
    2. Whether the principle of <em>stare decisis</em> warranted the continued application of <em>Matter of Alison D. v. Virginia M.</em>

    <p><strong>Holding</strong></p>

    1. Yes, because a non-biological, non-adoptive parent can establish standing to seek custody or visitation if they can prove by clear and convincing evidence that they agreed with the biological parent to conceive a child and raise the child together as co-parents.
    2. No, because the Court overruled <em>Alison D.</em>

    <p><strong>Court's Reasoning</strong></p>

    The Court began by acknowledging that Domestic Relations Law § 70 does not define “parent,” leaving the definition to the courts. The Court reviewed its prior holding in <em>Matter of Alison D.</em>, which had limited standing to biological or adoptive parents to protect the rights of biological parents. However, the Court found that <em>Alison D.</em> was unworkable given evolving family structures and the enactment of same-sex marriage. The Court emphasized that its equitable powers have historically exercised their “inherent equity powers and authority” in order to determine “who is a parent and what will serve a child’s best interests.” The Court found that <em>Alison D.</em> created an inconsistency in the rights and obligations attendant to parenthood, and its foundational premise of heterosexual parenting and non-recognition of same-sex couples was unsustainable. The Court noted, “In the rarest of cases, we may overrule a prior decision if an extraordinary combination of factors undermines the reasoning and practical viability of our prior decision.” The Court then overruled <em>Alison D.</em> and held that a pre-conception agreement to conceive and raise a child as co-parents, if proven by clear and convincing evidence, is sufficient to establish standing. However, the Court declined to establish a test that would apply to every situation, particularly those that did not involve pre-conception agreements.

    <strong>Practical Implications</strong></p>

    This decision significantly alters the landscape of custody and visitation disputes involving non-biological parents in New York. Attorneys must now analyze these cases under the newly established standard. The ruling broadens the definition of “parent” and grants standing to individuals who were previously excluded. This will require a review of existing family law practices and may lead to increased litigation in this area. Lawyers should advise clients to document pre-conception agreements, which is crucial for establishing standing. The Court’s emphasis on the child’s best interests underscores the continued relevance of this factor in custody and visitation cases.