Matter of Maria C.R. v. Rafael G.
142 A.D.3d 165
N.Y. App. Div.2016Background
- Child born in El Salvador in Oct 1993; mother died ~2007–2008; father largely absent and allegedly abandoned/failed to support him. Child feared return to El Salvador because of gang violence.
- Child entered the U.S. in 2010, lived with relatives, and in Dec 2013 began living with petitioner Maria C. R., who provided care and support.
- Petitioner filed a Family Court guardianship petition under Family Court Act article 6 on July 30, 2014, when the child was 20, and sought special findings to enable Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) relief. Child consented to guardianship until age 21.
- Proceedings were repeatedly adjourned (including for fingerprinting of household members); the child turned 21 on Oct 16, 2014. No guardianship order or SIJS special-findings order was issued before that date.
- On Nov 26, 2014, Family Court, without a hearing, dismissed the guardianship petition with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and denied the motion for SIJS findings. Petitioner appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent/Child’s Counsel Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Family Court retained jurisdiction to grant guardianship after child turned 21 when petition was filed before 21 | Petition was filed before 21; court could grant guardianship or issue letters nunc pro tunc to the filing date | Family Court lacked jurisdiction once child reached 21 and could not retroactively cure that defect | Court held Family Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction after child turned 21; nunc pro tunc cannot cure jurisdictional defects |
| Whether Family Court could issue SIJS special findings after child turned 21 where petition was filed before 21 | Petitioner argued sufficient record existed to make special findings before aging out | Attorney for child argued no jurisdictional defect because petition filed before 21; court could issue findings | Court held special findings could not be issued because dependency/guardianship (a prerequisite) could not be conferred after age 21 |
| Whether federal SIJS provisions or DHS guidance can expand state court jurisdiction | Petitioner implied federal SIJS protections should allow Family Court to act | Family Court and State argued federal statute does not confer subject-matter jurisdiction on state courts | Court held federal SIJS statutes do not create or extend Family Court’s jurisdiction; federal protections against denial based on age do not permit state court to grant guardianship after 21 |
| Whether delay (adjournments for fingerprinting) warranted relief (e.g., mandamus) | Petitioner argued adjournments caused loss of relief and should have been expedited | Court observed fingerprinting is protocol, but delay was problematic; noted mandamus is appropriate in some delay cases | Court affirmed dismissal on jurisdictional grounds but noted better practice would be prompt rulings and mandamus as a remedy for undue delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Johna M.S. v Russell E.S., 10 N.Y.3d 364 (court of limited statutory subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Matter of Luis A.-S., 33 A.D.3d 793 (Family Ct guardianship jurisdiction terminates at 21)
- Matter of Trudy-Ann W. v Joan W., 73 A.D.3d 793 (interpretation of Family Ct Act § 661 allowing guardianship for persons under 21)
- Matter of Hei Ting C., 109 A.D.3d 100 (SIJS dependency requirement; limits on special findings when child ages out)
- Davis v. State of New York, 22 A.D.2d 733 (nunc pro tunc cannot cure lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Stock v. Mann, 255 N.Y. 100 (same principle: jurisdictional defects cannot be corrected nunc pro tunc)