Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Family Court's dismissal of a habeas corpus petition seeking custody and parental access to three children. The court determined that the petitioner lacked standing because he had previously conceded that his parental rights were terminated and the children were adopted by nonparties. Relying on Domestic Relations Law § 70 and controlling precedent, the court held that only a parent may petition for custody or parental access.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a biological father whose parental rights have been terminated has standing to seek custody or parental access in a habeas corpus proceeding under Domestic Relations Law § 70.
Holdings
- The petitioner lacked standing because his parental rights were terminated, and therefore the Family Court's dismissal of the petition is affirmed.
Key quotations
“Family Court has jurisdiction to determine custody [and parental access] in habeas corpus proceedings (Family Ct Act § 651[b]), and section 70(a) of the Domestic Relations Law allows a parent to apply for habeas relief for their minor child and authorizes the court to award custody [or parental access], based on the best interest of the child, and what will best promote the child's welfare and happiness.”
Factual background
Tyreek Davis, the biological father of three children, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in June 2023 seeking custody or, alternatively, parental access. The children had been adopted by non‑parties, and Davis's parental rights had been terminated before filing. The Family Court dismissed the petition, and Davis appealed.
Procedural history
The Family Court of Kings County dismissed the petitioner's writ of habeas corpus seeking custody or parental access. The petitioner appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division, Second Department.