New York high court clears kids to appeal custody rulings without parents

MANHATTAN (CN) — The New York Court of Appeals on Thursday found children have the authority to appeal a custody determination in family court even without the support of their parents, resolving a contentious debate that has divided mid-level appellate courts around the state.

In a five-page ruling, Court of Appeals Judge Madeline Singas wrote state law “clearly authorizes” an attorney for the child to make these appeals — even when neither parent has lodged one themselves.

“The Family Court Act plainly authorizes an [attorney for the child] to appeal on behalf of the subject child even though the child is not a full party to the custody proceedings,” Singas wrote.

However, she added that “like any appealing party,” the child must have standing by proving they were “aggrieved.”

Singas’ ruling, affirmed by the other six judges on New York’s highest court, reverses Fourth Department precedent that finds children in custody disputes lack the authority to appeal independent of the parents.

The underlying case stems from a dispute involving a mother and father who initially agreed to let their four children live primarily with the mother — until the father petitioned to modify the custody order. When the family court sided with the father in modifying the terms, the attorney appointed to represent the kids sought an appeal to keep the children living with their mom.

The mother didn’t file an appeal of her own, but did pen a letter to the appellate court supporting her children. Still, the court dismissed the kids’ appeal, pursuant to that Fourth Department precedent — which contradicts the guidance of the other three mid-level appellate departments in New York.

The Second Department, which covers parts of southern New York including Long Island, Queens, Brooklyn and Westchester, “has endorsed the [attorney for the child’s] authority to appeal on behalf of their client,” Singas wrote. A 2019 ruling from the Second Department found the Family Court Act expressly recognizes that right since it references the attorney for the child’s permission to file a notice of appeal.

The First Department, which covers Manhattan and The Bronx, and the Third Department, which covers parts of central and northern New York, have abided by that precedent.

“The Fourth Department has taken a different approach, dismissing appeals taken solely by an [attorney for the child] when neither parent party appeals or otherwise indicates their support for the child’s appeal,” Singas found.

That court has found that a child in a custody dispute “does not have ‘full-party status’” and cannot force their parent to “litigate a petition that [they] ha[ve] since abandoned.”

But Singas and the Court of Appeals sided with the other departments instead, finding a ruling otherwise would render the Family Court Act’s “relevant language without practical effect.”

The ruling bolsters the power of lawyers appointed to represent children in custody battles, though it will only likely have a noticeable effect on parts of central and western New York served by the Fourth Department.

Speaking to Courthouse News on Friday, family lawyer Alison Bates, who represented the children in the underlying matter, said she was pleased there is now uniformity across the state.

“I didn’t feel like it was fair to kids to have different rights depending on where they lived in New York State,” Bates said. “So it was just about making sure that there was equal protection across the state — mission accomplished.”

Follow @Uebey Follow @uebey.bsky.social