| Matter of Antonio H. v Angelic W. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04872 [51 AD3d 1022] |
| May 27, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Antonio H., Appellant, v Angelic W.,Respondent. George H., Nonparty Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of George H.,Respondent, v Angelic W., Respondent. Antonio H., Nonparty Appellant. (Proceeding No.2.) |
—[*1] Steven Greenfield, New York, N.Y., for nonparty respondent in proceeding No. 1 andpetitioner-respondent in proceeding No. 2. Toba Beth Stutz, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In two related proceedings to establish paternity pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, theputative father Antonio H. appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Seiden,Ref.), dated July 5, 2006, which, after a hearing, in effect, denied his paternity petition inproceeding No. 1 and granted the paternity petition of George H. in proceeding No. 2 and, ineffect, directed the entry of an order of filiation adjudicating George H. the father of the subjectchild.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the contentions of the putative father Antonio H. (hereinafter the appellant) theFamily Court properly applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The paramount concern in[*2]applying equitable estoppel in paternity cases is the bestinterests of the subject child (see Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d 320, 326[2006]; Matter of Maurice T. v Mark P., 23 AD3d 567 [2005]; Matter of John RobertP. v Vito C., 23 AD3d 659, 661 [2005]). Additionally, "courts are more inclined to imposeequitable estoppel to protect the status of a child in an already recognized and operativeparent-child relationship" (Matter of Sarah S. v James T., 299 AD2d 785, 785 [2002][internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Greg S. v Keri C., 38AD3d 905 [2007]).
Here, the evidence established that George H. formed a strong father-daughter relationshipwith the subject child. In this regard, the record demonstrates that George H. has been the subjectchild's primary caretaker for her entire life, except for a brief period in her early infancy. Thesubject child calls George H. "Daddy," and he is the person who has continuously supported heremotionally and financially. Moreover, the subject child has formed emotional and psychologicalbonds to George H.'s family, and she views them as her family. Additionally, George H. has beenheld out to the public as the subject child's father.
In contrast, the appellant made no efforts to establish a father-daughter relationship with thesubject child. Despite believing himself to be the subject child's biological father and knowingthat she was primarily living with and being cared for by George H., he did not file a paternitypetition until the subject child was over two years old. He also admitted that he did not send herany gifts, cards, or financial support. Although the Family Court permitted the appellant to bepresent during the subject child's visitation with the mother, he did not interact with the child andbasically ignored her during visitation. There was also a 10-month period where no visitationoccurred. Consequently, the appellant allowed the subject child to develop a strong bond toGeorge H. as her father.
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Carni andChambers, JJ., concur.