| Matter of Jumper v Hemphill |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05998 [75 AD3d 507] |
| July 6, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Jacqueline Jumper, Respondent, v LaurieHemphill, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, aslimited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County(Davidson, J.), entered August 14, 2009, as, after a hearing, awarded custody of the subject childto the petitioner.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
" 'As between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has the superior right to custody thatcannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished the right due tosurrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, unfitness, or other similar extraordinarycircumstances' " (Matter of Barcellos vWarren-Kidd, 57 AD3d 984, 984-985 [2008], quoting Matter of Danzy v Jones-Moore, 54AD3d 858, 858 [2008]; see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 548 [1976];Matter of Holmes v Glover, 68AD3d 868 [2009]; Matter ofWilson v Smith, 24 AD3d 562, 563 [2005]). "A determination of the best interests ofthe child is made only if the nonparent meets his or her burden of establishing the existence ofextraordinary circumstances" (Matter of Barcellos v Warren-Kidd, 57 AD3d at 985;see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d at 548; Matter of Brown v Zuzierla, 73 AD3d 765 [2010]; Matter ofHolmes v Glover, 68 AD3d at 869; Matter of K.F.T. v D.P.G., 54 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2008]; Matterof Wilson v Smith, 24 AD3d at 563). "Upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances, acourt must consider whether a transfer of custody would be in the best interests of the child"(Matter of Barcellos v Warren-Kidd, 57 AD3d at 985).
Here, the petitioner, the subject child's godmother, established extraordinary circumstancesby demonstrating that the mother surrendered the child to her when the child was approximatelythree months old, and that, after taking the child into her home, the petitioner provided for all ofthe child's financial, educational, emotional, and medical needs, with no contribution from themother (see Matter of Holmes v Glover, 68 AD3d at 869; Matter of Barcellos vWarren-Kidd, 57 AD3d at 985; Matter of Gilchrest v Patterson, 55 AD3d 833 [2008]; Matter of West v [*2]Turner, 38 AD3d 673, 674 [2007]; Matter of Wilson vSmith, 24 AD3d at 563).
Further, the record demonstrates that the petitioner has provided the child with a stable,nurturing, and supportive home environment, and that the child has thrived in her care. Thus, theFamily Court correctly determined that it would be in the child's best interests for custody of thechild to be awarded to the petitioner, with whom the child has bonded psychologically (seeMatter of Barcellos v Warren-Kidd, 57 AD3d at 985).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Rivera, Santucci andMiller, JJ., concur.