| Matter of Scott v Jenkins |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03647 [62 AD3d 1053] |
| May 7, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Debie L. Scott, Respondent, v Jessica L. Jenkins,Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Debie L. Scott, Respondent, v Jessica L. Jenkins,Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Debie L. Scott, Respondent, vJessica L. Jenkins, Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.) |
—[*1] Debie L. Scott, Gouverneur, respondent pro se. Diane J. Exxo, Law Guardian, Canton.
Lahtinen, J. Appeals from three orders of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Potter,J.), entered January 7, 2008, which granted petitioner's applications, in three proceedingspursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, for custody of the children of respondent Jessica L. Jenkins.
Respondent Jessica L. Jenkins is the mother of three children, born in 1997, 2001 and 2004.In August 2005, she sent the two oldest children to live with her father and stepmother,petitioner. Thereafter, in March 2006, the youngest child also started residing with petitioner. InJuly 2006, petitioner was granted orders of guardianship for all three children. The mother haslived away for various periods of time, but has maintained occasional contact with the children.Petitioner was ostensibly informed by a nonlawyer in the local Probation Department that,despite the guardianship orders, the mother could take the children at any time unless petitionerobtained custody orders.[FN1]In September 2007, petitioner brought these three proceedings seeking custody of the children.The mother was present at the initial appearance before Family Court, the matter was adjournedand, although the mother's counsel appeared on the adjourned date, the mother failed to appearor notify her attorney of her whereabouts. Family Court found the mother in default, tooktestimony from petitioner and then granted legal custody of the children to petitioner. Themother appeals.
We are unpersuaded by the mother's argument that Family Court erred in finding her indefault. A party who fails to appear generally will not be considered in default when the party'sattorney is able to offer an explanation for the absence (see Matter of Harris-Wilks v Harris, 56 AD3d 1063, 1063-1064[2008]; Matter of Kargoe vMitchell, 12 AD3d 978, 979 [2004], appeal dismissed 4 NY3d 794 [2005]).However, where the attorney is unable to provide a reason for his or her client's failure to appear,a default may be appropriate (seeMatter of Hill v Hillenbrand, 12 AD3d 980, 981 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 705[2005]). "It is well settled that a party cannot appeal from an order entered upon default, theproper procedure being to move to vacate the default and, if necessary, appeal from the denial ofthat motion" (Matter of Shabazz v Blackmon, 274 AD2d 770, 771 [2000], lvdismissed 95 NY2d 945 [2000] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Here, themother's attorney acknowledged that he did not know why the mother failed to appear. FamilyCourt's finding of a default was thus proper, and the appeal must be dismissed (see id. at771; see also Matter of Thorsland vRay, 45 AD3d 1119, 1119 [2007]). Parenthetically, we note that since petitioner hadalready been awarded legal [*2]guardianship,[FN2]the showing of extraordinary circumstances and best interests of the children (issues raised bythe mother in this appeal) should have previously been considered within the context ofawarding the nonparent guardianship of the children (see Matter of Lillian R., 12 AD3d 967, 969 [2004]; see also Matter of Nancy C. v AlisonC., 57 AD3d 986, 987 [2008]).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeals aredismissed, without costs.
Footnote 1: Some of the confusion about thelegal powers of guardians and custodians was clarified in recent legislation (see L 2008,ch 404 [eff Nov. 3, 2008]).
Footnote 2: The prior guardianship ordersare not part of the record.