Barone v. Chapman-Cleland
| Decision Date | 19 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | 416 CAF 14-01034 |
| Citation | 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05306,129 A.D.3d 1578,10 N.Y.S.3d 380 |
| Parties | In The Matter of Brooke S. BARONE, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Elizabeth A. CHAPMAN–CLELAND, Respondent–Respondent. R. Thomas Rankin, Esq., Attorney for The Child, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
129 A.D.3d 1578
10 N.Y.S.3d 380
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05306
In The Matter of Brooke S. BARONE, Petitioner–Respondent
v.
Elizabeth A. CHAPMAN–CLELAND, Respondent–Respondent.
R. Thomas Rankin, Esq., Attorney for The Child, Appellant.
416 CAF 14-01034
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
June 19, 2015.
R. Thomas Rankin, Attorney for The Child, Jamestown, Appellant pro se.
Brooke S. Barone, Petitioner–Respondent pro se.
Sherry A. Bjork, Frewsburg, for Respondent–Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:
Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, seeking custody and visitation with the son of respondent, her former same-sex partner. The Attorney for the Child (AFC) appeals from an order dismissing the petition on the ground that petitioner was not married to respondent and did not adopt the child, and thus lacked standing to seek custody of, or visitation with, him. We affirm.
The AFC contends that, because the best interests of the child are paramount in custody and visitation disputes, “the standing accorded to parents should extend to those who have a recognized and operative parent-child relationship, regardless of their sexual orientation.” The AFC further contends that the doctrine of equitable estoppel should apply to bar respondent from denying that petitioner is a parent of the subject child, and thus we should conclude that petitioner has standing to seek custody and visitation. Those contentions are without merit. “[T]he Court of Appeals has recently reiterated that a nonbiological, nonadoptive parent does not have standing to seek visitation when a biological parent who is fit opposes it, and that equitable estoppel does not apply in such situations even where the nonparent has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shaw v. Rosha Enters., Inc.
...N.Y.2d 534, 540, 749 N.Y.S.2d 467, 779 N.E.2d 178 ; Hartshorn v. Chaddock, 135 N.Y. 116, 122, 31 N.E. 997, rearg. denied 32 N.E. 648 ; 129 A.D.3d 1578Franklin Corp. v. Prahler, 91 A.D.3d 49, 57, 932 N.Y.S.2d 610 ). Here, it is undisputed that the cost of the required demolition exceeds the ......
-
Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A.C.C.
...motion to dismiss on constraint of Alison D. The attorney for the child appealed.2 The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed (see 129 A.D.3d 1578, 1578–1579, 10 N.Y.S.3d 380 [4th Dept.2015] ). The Court concluded that, because petitioner had not married respondent, had not adopted the chi......
-
Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A.C.C.
...motion to dismiss on constraint of Alison D. The attorney for the child appealed.2 The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed (see 129 A.D.3d 1578, 1578–1579, 10 N.Y.S.3d 380 [4th Dept.2015] ). The Court concluded that, because petitioner had not married respondent, had not adopted the chi......
-
Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A.
...Respondent.R. Thomas Rankin, Esq., Attorney for the Child, Appellant.Court of Appeals of New York.March 31, 2016.OpinionReported below, 129 A.D.3d 1578, 10 N.Y.S.3d 380.Motion by National Center for Lesbian Rights et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted an......