Jennifer L. v. Gerald S.
| Citation | 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08730,145 A.D.3d 1581,46 N.Y.S.3d 310 |
| Parties | In the Matter of JENNIFER L., Petitioner–Respondent, v. GERALD S., Jr., Respondent–Appellant. In the Matter of Gerald S., Jr., Petitioner–Appellant, v. Jennifer L., Respondent–Respondent. In the Matter of Melinda L.-B., Petitioner–Respondent, v. Gerald S., Jr., Respondent–Appellant, and Jennifer L., Respondent–Respondent. In the Matter of Jennifer L., Petitioner, v. Shane C., Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 23 December 2016 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
145 A.D.3d 1581
46 N.Y.S.3d 310
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08730
In the Matter of JENNIFER L., Petitioner–Respondent,
v.
GERALD S., Jr., Respondent–Appellant.
In the Matter of Gerald S., Jr., Petitioner–Appellant,
v.
Jennifer L., Respondent–Respondent.
In the Matter of Melinda L.-B., Petitioner–Respondent,
v.
Gerald S., Jr., Respondent–Appellant,
and
Jennifer L., Respondent–Respondent.
In the Matter of Jennifer L., Petitioner,
v.
Shane C., Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Dec. 23, 2016.
Kimberly J. Czapranski, Interim Conflict Defender, Rochester (Kathleen P. Reardon of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant and Petitioner–Appellant.
Paul B. Watkins, Fairport, for Petitioner–Respondent Jennifer L. and Respondent–Respondent.
Nathan A. Vanloon, Attorney for the Child, Rochester.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Petitioner mother in the first proceeding is the biological mother of a child born in October 2012. A week after the child's birth, the mother and respondent in the first proceeding, Gerald S., Jr. (Gerald), signed an acknowledgment of paternity. The mother was unable to care for the child because of her own mental health issues, and custody was granted to Gerald. Approximately one year later, Family Court issued a consent order
granting the mother and Gerald joint custody with Gerald having primary physical residency. Less than two months later, however, in December 2013, the mother filed the petition in the first proceeding to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity. Gerald then filed the petition in the second proceeding to modify custody by seeking sole custody of the child. In the third proceeding,
the child's maternal grandmother filed a petition seeking custody of the child. In the fourth proceeding, the mother filed a paternity petition against Shane C. (Shane) in March 2014.
The mother and Shane appeared before the court on the paternity petition, and Shane, who had no involvement in the child's life to that point, expressed in no uncertain terms that he wanted nothing to do with the child. Nevertheless, the court, without notification to Gerald, ordered a genetic marker test, which indicated a 99.99% probability that Shane was the child's father. At the next court appearance, on the mother's petition to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity, Gerald raised the defense of equitable estoppel, and the court reluctantly ordered a hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court, inter alia, granted the mother's petition to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity, dismissed Gerald's modification petition with prejudice, vacated the custody order, implicitly granted the mother's paternity petition with respect to Shane by declaring Shane the father of the child, and removed Gerald as a party in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Szatanek
...with trial. Thus, the court " ‘denied [defendant] the expert judgment of counsel to which the Sixth Amendment entitles him’ " ( Henley, 145 A.D.3d at 1581, 45 N.Y.S.3d 739, quoting People v. Colville, 20 N.Y.3d 20, 32, 955 N.Y.S.2d 799, 979 N.E.2d 1125 [2012] ). Nevertheless, we conclude th......
-
People v. Henley
...Here, the court "made plain that [it] would be guided solely by defendant's choice in the matter, despite the defense attorney's clearly 145 A.D.3d 1581stated views and advice to the contrary," and thus the court "denied [defendant] the expert judgment of counsel to which the Sixth Amendmen......
-
Danielle E.P. v. Christopher N.
...Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D. , 7 N.Y.3d 320, 330, 820 N.Y.S.2d 199, 853 N.E.2d 610 [2006] ; see Matter of Jennifer L. v. Gerald S. , 145 A.D.3d 1581, 1582, 46 N.Y.S.3d 310 [4th Dept. 2016], lv dismissed 29 N.Y.3d 942, 51 N.Y.S.3d 490, 73 N.E.3d 846 [2017] ).Nevertheless, the fact that te......
-
Erie Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. ex rel. J.F. v. R.P.
...interest in maintaining his relationship(s) with the person(s) he has always known as his father (or mother). Jennifer L v. Gerald S. , 145 A.D.3d 1581, 46 N.Y.S.3d 310 (4th Dept., 2016) ; Westchester Co. DSS ex rel. Pauline MB v. Arnoldo B. , 130 A.D.3d 743, 14 N.Y.S.3d 71 (2d Dept., 2015)......