Wendy Woodhouse v. Carpenter

134 A.D.2d 924, 522 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51125
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 10, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 134 A.D.2d 924 (Wendy Woodhouse v. Carpenter) 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
Wendy Woodhouse v. Carpenter, 134 A.D.2d 924, 522 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition granted. Memorandum: The trial court made no factual findings to support its conclusion that exceptional circumstances exist to deprive the natural mother of custody (see, Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543), and we conclude that the record fails [925]*925to support such determination. Although petitioner was separated from her son for nearly four years, she maintained constant contact with him and exercised meaningful, though infrequent, visitations while residing in Wyoming. Upon her return to New York, she maintained regular and frequent visitation with her son and has established a loving parent-child relationship. There is no demonstration that petitioner has exhibited utter indifference toward her son or that granting her petition would "drastically affect the welfare of the child” (Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, supra, at 549; Matter of Michael Paul T. v Thomas R., 124 AD2d 970, 971). In a dispute between the natural mother and paternal grandmother, the issue is not whether the grandmother has also established a close bond with the child or whether she might be a better parent (see, Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, supra, at 549). Absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances sufficient to deprive the natural parent of a superior right to custody, the question of best interests of the child is not reached (Matter of Male Infant L., 61 NY2d 420, 427). (Appeal from order of Ontario County Family Court, Reed, J. — custody.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

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

Related

SUAREZ, RICARDO v. WILLIAMS, MELISSA
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
Suarez v. Williams
128 A.D.3d 20 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Tucker v. Martin
75 A.D.3d 1087 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Cote v. Brown
299 A.D.2d 876 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 A.D.2d 924, 522 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wendy-woodhouse-v-carpenter-nyappdiv-1987.