MATTER OF CORTRIGHT v. Workman
| Decision Date | 03 April 2003 |
| Citation | 757 N.Y.S.2d 628,304 A.D.2d 862 |
| Parties | In the Matter of LESLIE K. CORTRIGHT, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>PETER K. WORKMAN et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Crew III, J.
Respondents are the biological parents of a child born in May 1999. In November 2000 petitioner, the child's paternal grandmother, commenced this proceeding seeking custody of the child. Respondents opposed the application and cross-petitioned for similar relief. At the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing that followed, Family Court granted respondents' motion to dismiss, finding that petitioner had failed to demonstrate the existence of extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant depriving respondents of custody. This appeal by petitioner ensued.
We affirm. "As the case law makes abundantly clear, a biological parent has a right to custody of his or her child[], superior to that of all others, absent surrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, unfitness or other like extraordinary circumstances, and the burden of proving such extraordinary circumstances lies with the party attempting to divest the biological parent of custody" (Matter of Ciampa v Ciampa, 301 AD2d 876, 877 [2003] [citations omitted]). Based upon our review of the record as a whole, we agree with Family Court that petitioner failed to meet that burden here and, accordingly, her petition for custody was properly dismissed.
Although the record indeed reflects that respondents on occasion left their daughter with petitioner for a period of time, there is nothing in the record to suggest that respondents abandoned, surrendered or voluntarily relinquished custody of their child. Further, while it appears that petitioner routinely provided care for the child during the first 18 months of the child's life, one or both respondents were living with and/or maintained regular contact with petitioner during this same time period. Thus, the record as a whole fails to disclose either a prolonged period of disruption in custody or a complete abdication of parental rights and responsibilities.
To be sure, respondents' youth and lack of maturity lead to lapses in parental judgment, but the deficiencies alleged do not provide a sufficient basis upon which to deprive respondents of custody (see Matter of Eger v Garafolo, 251 AD2d 770, 772-773 [1998]; Matter of Gray v Chambers, 222 AD2d 753, 754 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 811 [1996]). Nor does the purportedly sporadic nature of the attention...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burton v. Locke
...and resolve those shortcomings ( see Matter of Ramos v. Ramos, 75 A.D.3d at 1011–1012, 905 N.Y.S.2d 717;Matter of Cortright v. Workman, 304 A.D.2d 862, 863, 757 N.Y.S.2d 628 [2003];Matter of Gray v. Chambers, 222 A.D.2d 753, 754, 634 N.Y.S.2d 864 [1995],lv. denied87 N.Y.2d 811, 644 N.Y.S.2d......
-
Amber B. v. Scott C.
...155 A.D.3d 1047, 1049, 65 N.Y.S.3d 207 [2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 901, 2018 WL 1415326 [2018] ; see Matter of Cortright v. Workman, 304 A.D.2d 862, 863, 757 N.Y.S.2d 628 [2003] ). Accordingly, Family Court's determination that the grandmother did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances......
-
Mildred PP. v. Samantha QQ.
...a prolonged period of separation or “a complete abdication of parental rights and responsibilities” (Matter of Cortright v. Workman, 304 A.D.2d 862, 863, 757 N.Y.S.2d 628 [2003] ). Petitioner's claim that the mother is an unfit parent is based upon allegations that Family Court found to be ......
- Cummings v. I. & OA SLUTSKY, INC.