Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Spooner v. Spooner
Citations: 244 A.D.2d 667; 664 N.Y.S.2d 177; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11482
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 12, 1997; New York; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made by Gary L. Spooner, Jr. from a Family Court order that dismissed his application to modify custody provisions from his divorce decree with Anna Spooner. The couple had one daughter, born in 1989. Upon their divorce in 1991, custody was awarded to the mother, and the father terminated his child support obligation via an extrajudicial consent that relinquished his parental rights and allowed for adoption. However, the mother was incarcerated shortly after, and she granted a special power of attorney to her parents, Patricia McCray and her husband, for the child's care. The child has lived with McCray since then, and no adoption has occurred. In 1995, the father initiated a proceeding to modify the custody arrangement, while McCray sought custody and/or visitation in a separate proceeding. The Family Court denied the father's petition, ruling he had relinquished his right to modify custody through the consent he executed. The father appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order. Although they deemed the father's 1991 consent invalid due to procedural deficiencies (not stating the court for adoption), they concluded he was estopped from seeking custody. The father, represented by counsel, understood that failing to revoke the consent within 45 days would forfeit his custody rights. He did not seek to revoke the consent within the statutory period or afterward and had previously indicated that he believed the consent was valid. Furthermore, he had not attempted to establish a relationship with his daughter since the divorce, despite knowing about her temporary custody arrangement with McCray. The court struck the father as a party in the second proceeding initiated by McCray and affirmed the Family Court's order without costs.