S.B. v. A.C.C.
61 N.E.3d 488, 28 N.Y.3d 1 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing to seek custody and visitation as a "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 if they can prove by clear and convincing evidence that they and the biological parent mutually agreed before conception to conceive and raise the child together.
Facts:
- In one case, Brooke S.B. and Elizabeth A.C.C. entered a relationship in 2006 and became engaged.
- The couple jointly decided to have a child, agreeing that Elizabeth would undergo artificial insemination to conceive.
- Brooke was actively involved during the pregnancy, was present at the birth, and cut the umbilical cord.
- The child was born in 2009, given Brooke's last name, and referred to Brooke as 'Mama B.'
- Brooke and Elizabeth lived with and jointly raised the child, sharing all major parental responsibilities until their relationship ended in 2010.
- After the breakup, Elizabeth initially allowed Brooke regular visits with the child but eventually terminated all contact in 2013.
Procedural Posture:
- Brooke S.B. (Petitioner) commenced a proceeding in Family Court seeking joint custody and regular visitation of the child she had raised with her former partner, Elizabeth A.C.C. (Respondent).
- Respondent moved to dismiss the petition, arguing Petitioner lacked standing as a 'parent' under the controlling precedent of Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M.
- The Family Court, finding it was constrained by Alison D., granted Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition.
- The attorney for the child appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
- The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Family Court's order, holding that because Petitioner was not a biological or adoptive parent, Alison D. barred her from seeking custody or visitation.
- The Court of Appeals (this court) granted the attorney for the child leave to appeal.
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 person who lacks a biological or adoptive relationship to a child, but who agreed with the biological parent to conceive and raise the child as a co-parent, have standing as a "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 to seek custody and visitation?
Opinions:
Majority - Abdus-Salaam, J.
Yes. Where a partner shows by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together, the non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing to seek visitation and custody under Domestic Relations Law § 70. This decision overrules the 25-year-old precedent of Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which narrowly defined a 'parent' as only a biological or adoptive parent. The court reasoned that the Alison D. rule had become unworkable with the increasing variety of familial relationships and inflicted disproportionate hardship on non-traditional families. Furthermore, the legal landscape has changed significantly with the legalization of same-sex marriage and prior court decisions allowing equitable estoppel to establish parenthood for child support obligations (Shondel J.), creating an untenable inconsistency where a person could have parental obligations without parental rights. The court invoked its equitable powers to protect the best interests of children by allowing for a determination of parentage based on the parties' pre-conception intent to co-parent.
Concurring - Pigott, J.
Yes, but on narrower grounds; the court should not have overruled Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M. The petitioner should be granted standing based on 'extraordinary circumstances,' not by judicially revamping the definition of 'parent.' The power to define who qualifies as a parent belongs to the legislature, which has had numerous opportunities to amend the statute since Alison D. and has declined to do so. The traditional definition of parentage—derived from marriage, biology, or adoption—should be retained. However, in this case, the couple decided to have a child at a time when they were legally barred from marrying in New York, denying them legal protections available to heterosexual couples. This historical inequality constitutes an extraordinary circumstance sufficient to grant the petitioner standing to seek visitation.
Analysis:
This decision represents a landmark shift in New York family law by formally expanding the definition of 'parent' beyond biological or adoptive ties. By overruling Alison D., the court abandoned a rigid, bright-line rule in favor of a more flexible approach that recognizes the intent of the parties to create a family. This ruling resolves a significant inconsistency in the law, aligning parental rights (custody and visitation) with parental obligations (child support). The decision provides a crucial legal pathway for non-biological parents, particularly in same-sex relationships, to maintain relationships with children they helped conceive and raise, fundamentally changing the legal landscape for non-traditional families in the state.
