A New York appellate court has ruled that a great-grandmother does not have the legal standing to seek custody or visitation of her great-grandchild. This decision affects families navigating custody disputes, particularly those involving extended family members.
The case, known as Matter of Michele D. v. Jessica F., was decided by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York on June 18, 2026. The ruling comes in the wake of a custody agreement that previously allowed the child's father and mother to share joint custody until the father's death in September 2023. Following this, the great-grandmother, Michele D., sought visitation and joint custody, leading to a legal dispute with the child's mother, Jessica F.
The conflict began when Michele D. filed a petition in March 2024, seeking visitation and joint custody of her great-grandchild, born in 2020. This request was made after the death of the child's father, who had shared custody with Jessica F. A prior mediated custody agreement had been in place since March 2022. Jessica F. responded by filing a motion to dismiss Michele D.'s petition, arguing that it failed to state a valid claim under New York law.
The Family Court of Chemung County, presided over by Judge Mary Tarantelli, ruled in favor of Jessica F. on August 5, 2024, dismissing Michele D.'s petition without a hearing. The court found that Michele D. lacked standing to seek visitation and that she did not present sufficient evidence of extraordinary circumstances to justify a claim for custody as a non-parent.
The appellate court upheld the Family Court's decision, affirming that great-grandparents do not have the legal standing to petition for visitation under New York's Domestic Relations Law § 72. The ruling stated, "We decline the great-grandmother's request to abandon established precedent holding that great-grandparents do not have standing to petition for visitation under Domestic Relations Law § 72." The court emphasized that the legal framework strictly applies to grandparents, not great-grandparents.
Furthermore, the court addressed Michele D.'s claim for joint legal custody. It explained that a parent has a superior claim to custody over all other individuals unless a non-parent can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances such as surrender, abandonment, or persistent neglect. The court noted, "A nonparent bears the heavy burden of establishing that there are extraordinary circumstances and, thus, that he or she has standing to seek custody of another person's child."
In this case, the court found that Michele D.'s petition did not adequately establish extraordinary circumstances. The court stated, "Even when liberally construing such allegations, accepting them as true, and providing the great-grandmother with the benefit of every favorable inference, she failed to 'set forth sufficient facts which, if established, could support a finding of extraordinary circumstances.'" The court clarified that mere bonding with the child or concerns about the mother's housing situation do not meet the legal threshold required for custody claims.
This ruling has significant implications for family law in New York, particularly regarding the rights of extended family members in custody disputes. The court's decision reinforces the legal principle that only parents have superior rights to custody unless compelling circumstances are proven. This may limit the ability of great-grandparents and other extended family members to seek custody or visitation, which could impact family dynamics in similar cases.
Moving forward, the ruling sets a clear precedent that great-grandparents lack standing under New York law to petition for visitation or custody. This decision may influence future cases involving non-parents seeking custody rights, emphasizing the need for extraordinary circumstances to be established.
As for what’s next, Michele D. may consider appealing the decision to a higher court, although the appellate court's ruling is typically final unless new evidence or legal arguments arise. There are no related cases pending that could impact this ruling directly.