Matter of Perry v. Perry
2018 NY Slip Op 2513 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent's superior right to custody can be overcome by a non-parent who demonstrates the existence of "extraordinary circumstances," which may include an overall pattern of the parent placing their own interests and unstable personal relationships ahead of the child's welfare and needs.
Facts:
- Samantha L. Perry (the mother) and Justin Bradley (the father) are the parents of a child born in 2012.
- After the parents' relationship ended, the mother and child moved frequently between residences in Tennessee and New York, including staying with relatives.
- In March 2015, the mother left the child with Susan M. Perry (the maternal grandmother) in New York so the mother could settle into a new apartment in Tennessee.
- During this period, the mother engaged in a series of relationships with men, exposing the child to substance abuse and domestic violence.
- The mother allowed one of her companions to babysit the child despite being warned that he was a registered sex offender.
- The mother was aware that the child was developing speech difficulties but took no action to address them; the grandmother ultimately sought treatment for the child.
- For much of 2015, the mother was unemployed, made no effort to visit the child, and was unaware of basic details of the child's care, such as the name of her daycare provider.
Procedural Posture:
- The child's father, Justin Bradley, initially obtained custody on an emergency basis.
- Subsequently, the child's mother (Samantha L. Perry), father, and maternal grandmother (Susan M. Perry) each filed separate custody petitions in the Family Court of Delaware County.
- In December 2015, the Family Court issued a temporary order awarding joint legal custody to the mother, father, and grandmother, with physical placement with the grandmother and parenting time for the mother and father.
- A combined hearing was conducted on all three custody petitions.
- During the hearing, the father defaulted, and his custody petition was dismissed by the court.
- The Family Court found that extraordinary circumstances existed and awarded sole custody to the grandmother.
- The mother, Samantha L. Perry, appealed the Family Court's order to the Appellate Division, Third Department.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a parent's pattern of behavior, including frequent moves, exposing the child to domestic violence and substance abuse, neglecting the child's developmental needs, and failing to maintain a consistent relationship, constitute 'extraordinary circumstances' sufficient to displace the parent's superior right to custody?
Opinions:
Majority - Devine, J.
Yes, such conduct constitutes extraordinary circumstances. A parent has a superior right to custody over all others absent surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, or other extraordinary circumstances. While individual actions like frequent moves or poor romantic choices are not sufficient on their own, the mother's conduct here demonstrates an 'overall pattern of placing her own interests and personal relationships ahead of' the child. The court found that exposing the child to substance abuse and domestic violence, leaving her with a registered sex offender, neglecting her speech-development needs, and the mother's overall lack of insight into her poor judgment collectively established the necessary extraordinary circumstances to proceed to a best-interests analysis.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the high bar required for a non-parent to gain custody over a biological parent, as established in Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys. It clarifies that 'extraordinary circumstances' need not be a single, discrete event but can be established through a cumulative pattern of parental instability, neglect, and poor judgment. The case serves as a precedent for how courts should weigh a collection of behaviors that, taken together, demonstrate a parent is unfit or has abdicated their responsibilities, thereby prioritizing the child's need for stability over the parent's biological rights.
