S.B. v. A.C.C.
28 N.Y.3d 1
NY2016Background
- Two consolidated Family Court appeals: Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C. and Estrellita A. v Jennifer L.D., each involving non-biological partners who helped plan conception and raised children together but lacked a biological or adoptive tie.
- Brooke: same-sex partners agreed respondent would carry child by artificial insemination; petitioner acted as co-parent (named on child, cut cord, primary caregiver post-birth) but had no adoption; after breakup, respondent cut off contact; Family Court and Appellate Division dismissed petition for custody/visitation for lack of standing under Alison D.
- Estrellita: partners registered as domestic partners, agreed on donor and conception; petitioner acted as co-parent, cut cord, shared parental duties; post-breakup respondent sued petitioner for support and successfully argued petitioner was a parent in support proceedings; Family Court then allowed petitioner visitation based on judicial estoppel; Appellate Division affirmed.
- Central statutory provision: Domestic Relations Law § 70(a) permits “either parent” to seek custody/visitation but does not define “parent.”
- The Court was asked to reconsider Matter of Alison D. (77 N.Y.2d 651), which held a non-biological, non-adoptive de facto parent lacks standing under §70, and to decide whether pre-conception agreements can establish standing by equitable estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alison D. should continue to bar standing for non-biological, non-adoptive partners who agreed to conceive and raise a child | Alison: Alison D. is outdated; statutory and social changes (marriage equality, adoptions) and child welfare require overruling Alison D. | Respondent: Stare decisis and statutory text support Alison D.; changes should come from Legislature | Overruled Alison D.; stare decisis displaced because of doctrinal inconsistency and changed legal landscape |
| Whether a pre-conception agreement to conceive and raise a child can confer standing under DRL §70 | Petitioners: Clear and convincing evidence of an agreement to conceive and raise the child as co-parents should create standing by equitable estoppel | Respondents: Absent biology or adoption, no standing under §70; parenthood should derive from marriage, biology, or adoption | If petitioner proves by clear and convincing evidence a pre-conception agreement to conceive and raise the child as co-parents, petitioner has standing to seek custody/visitation under §70 |
| Whether judicial estoppel can confer standing when a party previously asserted parent status in another proceeding | Petitioner in Estrellita and the child’s attorney: Prior successful support proceeding recognizing petitioner as a parent estops respondent from now denying parentage | Respondent: Requirements for judicial estoppel are not met; Alison D. bars standing regardless | Judicial estoppel can confer standing where prior proceeding’s inconsistent position produced a favorable judgment and prejudice would result from reversal; applied to affirm Estrellita |
| Scope of decision — whether test applies beyond pre-conception agreements | Petitioners/ amici sought a broader functional or multi-factor test covering varied family forms | Respondents warned against expansive judicial creation of parenthood rules better left to Legislature | Court limits holding: only recognizes standing when clear-and-convincing proof of a pre-conception agreement to conceive and raise child as co-parents; other situations reserved for future cases |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., 77 N.Y.2d 651 (1991) (previously held non-biological, non-adoptive de facto parent lacks standing under DRL §70)
- Matter of Jacob, 86 N.Y.2d 651 (1995) (permitted second-parent adoption by unmarried partners; emphasized child’s best interest in adoption statute)
- Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 N.Y.3d 320 (2006) (applies equitable estoppel in paternity/support context to protect child’s best interests)
- Debra H. v Janice R., 14 N.Y.3d 576 (2010) (reaffirmed Alison D. generally but recognized parentage by comity for civil unions and included concurrences advocating broader approach)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizing same-sex marriage and noting implications for children of same-sex couples)