Dehar v. Dehar

134 A.D.2d 656
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 5, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 134 A.D.2d 656 (Dehar v. Dehar) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dehar v. Dehar, 134 A.D.2d 656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

Levine, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Ulster County (Peters, J.), entered August 7, 1986, which, inter alia, granted petitioner Angelo Iacono’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for custody of Christopher Dehar.

In the instant case, Family Court awarded custody of Christopher Dehar, born January 22, 1970, to Angelo Iacono (Iacono), the former paramour of the child’s mother, Laurie M. Callan Dehar (Callan). It also denied the custody petition of Arthur Dehar (Dehar), the child’s father. Debar has not appealed from Family Court’s dispositions of the petitions. Family Court concluded that extraordinary circumstances existed for considering whether the child’s best interest would be served by awarding custody to Iacono, the nonparent (see, Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543). The court based [657]*657this determination solely on its finding that Iacono had become the child’s "psychological parent” during his long relationship with Callan. In making this ruling, Family Court relied upon this court’s decision in Matter of Ronald FF. v Cindy GG. (117 AD2d 332). Subsequent to Family Court’s disposition, Matter of Ronald FF. was reversed by the Court of Appeals (70 NY2d 141). In addition to holding that the Bennett test is inapplicable to a child’s visitation claim by a nonparent where the natural parent’s right to custody is undisputed, we read the court’s decision in Matter of Ronald FF. as disapproving a determination that the psychological parenthood of a nonparent alone constitutes extraordinary circumstances, that is, "surrender, abandonment, unfitness, persistent neglect, unfortunate or involuntary extended disruption of custody, or other equivalent but rare extraordinary circumstance which would drastically affect the welfare of the child” (Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, supra, at 549).

Consequently, the order herein must be reversed and the matter remitted to Family Court for further proceedings, including appropriate findings. We are also of the view that the hearing should be reopened for a reception of further proof, including medical evidence concerning possible sexual abuse of the child, and regarding any changes in the circumstances of the child and the respective parties relevant to the issue of custody which may have occurred since the granting of the order.

Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Family Court of Ulster County for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Main, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Burghdurf v. Rogers
233 A.D.2d 713 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Canabush v. Wancewicz
193 A.D.2d 260 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Culver v. Culver
190 A.D.2d 960 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Bisignano v. Walz
164 A.D.2d 317 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Alison D. v. Virginia M.
155 A.D.2d 11 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 A.D.2d 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dehar-v-dehar-nyappdiv-1988.