S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                    513
 
                        2025-2026 Regular Sessions
 
                             I N  S E N A T E
 
                                (PREFILED)
 
                              January 8, 2025
                                ___________
 
 Introduced  by  Sens.  PALUMBO, ASHBY, JACKSON, MARTINS, O'MARA, RHOADS,
   WEIK -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be commit-
   ted to the Committee on Children and Families
 
 AN ACT to amend the domestic relations law, in relation to the rights of
   grandparents with respect to visitation rights with minor children
 
   THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND  ASSEM-
 BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
 
   Section  1.  Section  72  of the domestic relations law, as amended by
 chapter 657 of the laws of 2003, is amended to read as follows:
   § 72. Special proceeding or habeas corpus to obtain visitation  rights
 or  custody  in  respect  to certain infant grandchildren. 1.  (A) Where
 either or both of the parents of a minor  child,  residing  within  this
 state,  is  or are deceased, or where circumstances show that conditions
 exist which equity would see fit to  intervene,  a  grandparent  or  the
 grandparents  of  [such child] A MINOR CHILD, RESIDING WITHIN THIS STATE
 may apply to the supreme court by commencing a special proceeding or for
 a writ of habeas corpus to have such child brought before such court, or
 may apply to the family court pursuant to subdivision (b) of section six
 hundred fifty-one of the family court act[; and on].
   (B) WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER SUCH GRANDPARENT  OR  GRANDPARENTS  SHALL
 HAVE  STANDING TO COMMENCE SUCH PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (A) OF
 THIS SUBDIVISION, A STRONG PRESUMPTION EXISTS IN FAVOR OF PARENTAL DECI-
 SIONS CONCERNING VISITATION. FURTHER, THE  COURT  SHALL  NOT  APPOINT  A
 GUARDIAN  AD  LITEM  UNTIL  SUCH TIME AS STANDING OF SUCH GRANDPARENT OR
 GRANDPARENTS HAS BEEN DETERMINED. A PETITIONER  SEEKING  TO  OVERTURN  A
 PARENTAL  DECISION  MUST  ALLEGE,  WITH DETAIL AND SPECIFICITY, THAT THE
 CHILD WOULD EXPERIENCE SIGNIFICANT HARM  TO  THEIR  HEALTH,  SAFETY,  OR
 WELFARE  IF  VISITATION  WERE  DENIED. PRIOR TO FILING THE PETITION, THE
 PETITIONER MUST HAVE MADE A GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT  AT  RECONCILIATION  WITH
 THE  RESPONDENT  AND  THE  PETITION MUST ALLEGE SO WITH SPECIFICITY, AND
 
  EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                       [ ] is old law to be omitted.
              

                                                            LBD02133-01-5
 S. 513                              2
 
 MUST BE VERIFIED OR ACCOMPANIED BY A VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT. THE COURT SHALL
 CONDUCT ITS OWN SEARCH TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PETITIONER IS A FIT  AND
 PROPER  PERSON  TO HAVE VISITATION RIGHTS WITH THE CHILD AND WHETHER THE
 PETITIONER  HAS  EVER HAD ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, CHILD ABUSE,
 CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE OR INCIDENTS INVOLVING HARM, OR RISK OF  HARM,  TO  A
 CHILD  MADE AGAINST SUCH PETITIONER OR PRIOR POLICE REPORTS  OR A DOMES-
 TIC VIOLENCE INCIDENT REPORT FILED AGAINST THEM. THE COURT SHALL FURTHER
 CONDUCT A SEARCH TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PETITIONER  IS,  OR  EVER  HAS
 BEEN, SUBJECT TO AN ORDER OF PROTECTION OR HAS ANY CRIMINAL HISTORY.
   (C)  ON  the  return thereof, the court, by order, after due notice to
 the parent or any other person or party having the  care,  custody,  and
 control  of  such  child,  to be given in such manner as the court shall
 prescribe, may make such directions as the best interest  of  the  child
 may  require, for visitation rights for such grandparent or grandparents
 in respect to such child.  ANY FINDING CONCERNING THE BEST INTERESTS  OF
 THE  CHILD  SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE STRONG PRESUMPTION THAT THE PARENTS'
 DECISION IS IN THE CHILD'S BEST INTEREST, AND  VISITATION  MAY  ONLY  BE
 ORDERED  IN CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE CHILD'S HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE
 WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE DENIAL  OF  VISITATION.  THE  COURT'S
 FINDING SUPPORTING AN ORDER OF VISITATION SHALL BE IN WRITING.
   2.  (a)  Where  a  grandparent  or  the grandparents of a minor child,
 residing within this state, can demonstrate to the satisfaction  of  the
 court  the existence of extraordinary circumstances, such grandparent or
 grandparents of such child may apply to the supreme court by  commencing
 a  special  proceeding or for a writ of habeas corpus to have such child
 brought before such court, or may apply  to  family  court  pursuant  to
 subdivision  (b)  of  section  six hundred fifty-one of the family court
 act; and on the return thereof, the court, by order, after due notice to
 the parent or any other person or party having the  care,  custody,  and
 control  of  such  child,  to be given in such manner as the court shall
 prescribe, may make such directions as the best interests of  the  child
 may  require, for custody rights for such grandparent or grandparents in
 respect to such child. An extended disruption of custody, as  such  term
 is  defined  in  this section, shall constitute an extraordinary circum-
 stance.
   (b) For the purposes of this section "extended disruption of  custody"
 shall  include,  but  not  be  limited to, a prolonged separation of the
 respondent parent and the child  for  at  least  twenty-four  continuous
 months during which the parent voluntarily relinquished care and control
 of  the  child  and the child resided in the household of the petitioner
 grandparent or grandparents, provided, however, that the court may  find
 that  extraordinary  circumstances exist should the prolonged separation
 have lasted for less than twenty-four months.
   (c) Nothing in this section shall limit  the  ability  of  parties  to
 enter  into  consensual  custody  agreements  absent  the  existence  of
 extraordinary circumstances.
   3. THE COURT MAY DIRECT THAT COSTS AND ALLOWANCES IN WHOLE OR IN PART,
 INCLUDING ATTORNEY'S FEES, BE  PAYABLE  BY  AN  UNSUCCESSFUL  PETITIONER
 WHERE  THE  COURT FINDS THAT THE CONTEST WAS BROUGHT IN BAD FAITH OR WAS
 FRIVOLOUS OR NON-MERITORIOUS.
   § 2. This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day  after  it  shall
 have become a law.