Matter of A.G.
Docket Docket No. G-24377/22 N-2110/18 V-16010/23 V-24861/22|Appeal No. 6453|Case No. 2024-02062|
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Family
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02450
- Docket numbers
- Docket NoG-24377/22 N-2110/18 V-16010/23 V-24861/22Appeal No6453Case No2024-02062
Appeal from a Family Court order granting a petition for nonparent guardianship and dismissing parents' petitions for custody.
Summary
The Appellate Division affirmed a Family Court order granting the petitioner nonparent guardianship of A.G., a child placed with the petitioner at birth in August 2018, and dismissed the parents' petitions for custody. The court found the petitioner demonstrated extraordinary circumstances and had been the child’s exclusive caregiver, meeting the child’s needs and fostering a strong bond. The parents had only sporadic or supervised contact, failed to provide financial support or stable housing, and did not show they could plan for the child's return. The court held the guardianship was in the child’s best interests.
Issues Decided
- Whether the petitioner established extraordinary circumstances to confer standing to seek nonparent guardianship under Family Court Act § 1055-b.
- Whether awarding guardianship to the petitioner was in the child’s best interests given the parents' contact, stability, and engagement.
- Whether the Family Court's credibility and fact findings regarding parental fitness and the child's preference were supported by the record.
Court's Reasoning
The court applied the statutory and precedential standard for extraordinary circumstances and found the petitioner met it because the child had lived with and been exclusively cared for by the petitioner since birth. The parents’ limited, sporadic, or supervised contact, lack of financial support, unstable housing, failure to engage in services, and absence of a concrete plan for the child’s return showed they were not presently suitable custodians. Considering evidence of the petitioner’s stable, loving care and the child’s strong preference to remain, the court concluded guardianship served the child’s best interests.
Authorities Cited
- Family Court Act § 1055-b
- Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys40 NY2d 543 (1976)
- Eschbach v Eschbach56 NY2d 167 (1982)
- Matter of T.G.V.242 AD3d 476 (1st Dept 2025)
Parties
- Petitioner
- J.W.
- Respondent-Appellant
- K.T.
- Respondent-Appellant
- J.G.
- Attorney
- Randall S. Carmel
- Attorney
- Lewis S. Calderon
- Attorney
- Steven N. Feinman
- Attorney
- Dawne A. Mitchell
- Judge
- Ashley B. Black
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-23
- Family Court order entered
- 2024-03-12
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Petitioner
Continue providing stable care and document ongoing involvement in the child’s education and medical needs to support the guardianship going forward.
- 2
Parents
If they wish to challenge or change the arrangement, consult counsel about options and gather evidence of stable housing, financial support, service completion, and a concrete reunification plan.
- 3
All parties
Consider whether to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals if there are viable legal grounds, and consult an appellate attorney about deadlines and likelihood of review.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's appointment of the petitioner as the child's guardian and denied the parents' custody petitions.
- Why wasn't custody returned to the parents?
- The parents had only sporadic or supervised contact, lacked stable housing and financial support, did not engage sufficiently in required services, and provided no concrete plan for the child's return.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The child, the petitioner who will remain the guardian, and the child's parents, who will not receive custody based on the court's findings.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Potentially, but this is an intermediate appellate decision; a party seeking further review would need to pursue leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals under the applicable rules.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Matter of A.G. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02450 Matter of A.G. 2026 NY Slip Op 02450 April 23, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department In the Matter of A.G., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., J.W., Petitioner-Respondent, K.T. et al., Respondents-Appellants. Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026 Docket No. G-24377/22 N-2110/18 V-16010/23 V-24861/22|Appeal No. 6453|Case No. 2024-02062| Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, González, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, JJ. Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Jericho (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for K.T., appellant. Law Office of Lewis S. Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for J.G., appellant. Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society (Claire V. Merkine of counsel), attorney for the child. Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Ashley B. Black, J.), entered on or about March 12, 2024, which, after a hearing, granted petitioner's request to appoint her as the guardian of the subject child and dismissed the father's and mother's petitions for custody of the child, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Family Court properly found that petitioner established extraordinary circumstances conferring standing to seek nonparent guardianship of the subject child ( see Family Ct Act § 1055-b[a][iv][A]; Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys , 40 NY2d 543, 549 [1976]; Matter of T.G.V., 242 AD3d 476, 476 [1st Dept 2025]; Matter of Caleesta S. [Daphne M.] , 200 AD3d 504, 505 [1st Dept 2021]). The child was placed with petitioner immediately after birth in August 2018 as a result of neglect proceedings against the mother, and since that time, the child has been in petitioner's exclusive care and custody, and petitioner has assumed full responsibility for the child's daily needs. In contrast, the mother has only had supervised contact with the child, and even that contact has been sporadic (see Matter of Caron C.G.G. [Alicia G. — Jasmine. D.] , 165 AD3d 476, 476 [1st Dept 2018]). The mother has also provided no financial support and made no effort to participate in or obtain information regarding the child's education or medical care, nor has she articulated a clear plan for the child's return to her care ( see Matter of Prince T.A.M.-F. , 224 AD3d 509, 509 [1st Dept 2024]). While the mother maintained that she was prepared to care for the child full-time, she did not at the time of her testimony have permanent or stable housing to bring the child to live. Moreover, in the five years following the child's removal, the mother failed to fully engage in services or comply with the requirements of her service plan. Her continued inability to address the conditions that placed her children at risk resulted in her loss of guardianship of her older daughter and in the removal in 2022 of her younger daughter, who remains in foster care to this day. Although the mother testified that she completed substance abuse counseling and was participating in mental health services, she provided no proof or documentation to substantiate that testimony. With respect to the father, although he testified that he wished to have custody of the child, he failed to take any steps to make the child's placement with him feasible and presented no evidence showing that he has planned for the child's return to his care. He continued to live in supportive housing that could not accommodate even daytime visits with the child, let alone allow the child to reside there. In addition, the father admitted that he did not know anything about the child's medical and educational needs, made little effort to become involved in the child's education, visited sporadically, relied on the child to initiate telephonic contact with him, and failed to provide the child with financial support ( see Matter of Chloe F.C. [Laura A.M —Steven J.C.] , 231 AD3d 426, 426 [1st Dept 2024]). Family Court's determination that it was in the best interests of the child to award guardianship to petitioner, who has cared for the child since infancy, is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Eschbach v Eschbach , 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Milagros R. v Quazay S.-R. , 202 AD3d 419, 419-420 [1st Dept 2022]). The evidence demonstrated that petitioner has provided a loving and stable home for the child and has ensured that all their needs are met. Petitioner and the child share a strong bond, and petitioner affirmatively stated that if granted guardianship, she would continue to assist in fostering a bond between the parents and the child ( see Matter of Nicolas Jude B. [Rosetta B.] , 195 AD3d 402, 403 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 905 [2021]). Additionally, although the child's wishes are not determinative, they are entitled to great weight, and the child expressed a strong preference to remain with petitioner ( see Melissa C.D. v Rene I.D. , 117 AD3d 407, 408 [1st Dept 2014]). There is no basis to disturb the findings of the Family Court, which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and hear their testimony ( see Matter of Jason Jiyell J. , 203 AD3d 460, 462 [1st Dept 2022]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 23, 2026