Gardner v. GardnerGardner v. Gardner
Mercure, J.P.
Petitioner is the maternal grandmother and respondents are the parents of a child born in 1994. Thе child, who has historically spent a great deal of time at the grandmother’s residence, moved in with the grandmother in June 2007. The grandmother thereafter filed a family offense petition against respondent Leanne Gardner (hereinafter the mother) and commenced this proceeding against the mother and respondent Shannen Brueckner (hereinafter the father) seeking custody of the child, basing her claims upon the child’s exposure to the parents’ violent arguments and the father’s alcoholism.
Family Court issued temporary orders оf protection against both parents at various points and, upon consent, awarded temporary custody to the grandmother. Several other petitions were also filed, relating to alleged violations of the temporary orders or the father’s ongoing disruptive conduct. As is relevant here, Family Court determined after a hearing that extraordinary circumstances existed and that the best interests of the child would be sеrved by a permanent award of custody to the grandmother. The parents separately appeal from the resulting custody order, and we affirm.1
Initially, the parents claim that Family Court improperly accepted proof predating thе scope of the custody petition. Family Court is afforded broad discretion in establishing the parameters of the proof at trial and, if necessary, may extend it to all relevant matters (see Matter of McGovern v McGovern, 58 AD3d 911, 913 [2009]; Matter of Tarrance v Mial, 22 AD3d 965, 966 [2005]; Matter of Stukes v Ryan, 289 AD2d 623, 624 [2001]). Here, the exceptionally broad allegations in the custody petition put the parents on notice of the grandmother’s claims that their poor behavior had persisted “for [the child’s] entire life.” Moreover,
In this custody dispute between a nonparent and parents, the grandmother bore the initial burden of demonstrating the existence of extraordinary circumstances, such as parental surrender, abandonment, neglect, or unfitness, warranting an intrusion upon the parents’ superior right to custody (see
Here, the record reveals that the parents frequently argued, the argumеnts had grown worse in the period prior to the child moving in with the grandmother, and the child was often present for these arguments. The arguments escalated into violence on multiple occasions, including the parents shoving each other, repeated incidents where both the mother and the father ripped a telеphone off the wall of the family residence, the mother’s penchant for throwing items at the father, and the mother threatening the father with a knife. Indeed, the mother admitted that she “black[ed] out” during arguments with the father and could not remember her actions afterwards.
Nor was the child spared from the parents’ abusive behаvior. For example, the mother argued with the child and proceeded to lock her out of the housе and, upon her return, pulled her hair. On another occasion, the father grabbed the child during an argument and screamed at her to get off of his property.2 Moreover, the father admittedly has a drinking problem that has intensified the strife, but he has not consistently attended counseling, and he checked himself out of a treatment program
Spain, Malone Jr., Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
MERCURE, J.P.