## Facts

- Michael B. was born in 1985 with medical complications and prenatal cocaine exposure and was placed in foster care directly from the hospital.
- At three months old, before paternity was established, Michael was placed with foster mother Maggie W. L. through a foster care agency; the placement was initially described to her as preadoptive.
- Michael lived with Maggie for more than five years and developed strong bonds with her household; he also had special needs requiring sustained care.
- After the father, Marvin B., was identified, the agency pursued proceedings seeking to free Michael for adoption; Marvin’s earlier consent to a permanent-neglect finding was later set aside and did not operate as a final termination of rights for purposes of this appeal.
- In 1989, Family Court found Michael was neglected as to Marvin but entered a 12-month suspended judgment conditioned on Marvin remaining drug-free, cooperating with supervision, and completing parenting-related services.
- After the suspended period, Family Court found Marvin substantially complied, found him fit, and ordered custody transferred to him with supervision and a transition plan; Michael left the foster home in December 1990.
- Maggie was permitted to intervene and sought custody; after an evidentiary hearing, Family Court reaffirmed custody to Marvin under Social Services Law § 392(6).
- The Appellate Division reversed and awarded custody to Maggie, relying heavily on Michael’s long-term bonding with her and her ability to address his special needs.

## Issues

1. Under Social Services Law § 392(6), may a court award custody to foster parents over a biological parent who is not shown to be unfit, based primarily on a comparative determination that the foster placement is “better” for the child?
2. What weight may be given to a child’s bonding with long-term foster parents in deciding “best interests” when a biological parent is found fit?
3. What deference is owed to Family Court’s custody findings in a foster-care review when an appellate court applies a different best-interests assessment?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the Family Court order transferring custody to Marvin B., subject to supervision and transition conditions.
- The court held that § 392(6)’s “best interests” standard must be applied consistently with the constitutional and common-law preference for a fit biological parent.
- Bonding with foster parents, though relevant, was not enough by itself to justify awarding custody to foster parents over a fit parent.
- The Appellate Division erred by using a comparative “better home” approach and by substituting its view of the facts for Family Court’s findings.

## Legal Principles

- A biological parent has a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of a child; the State may not substantially interfere absent unfitness, surrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, or other extraordinary circumstances.
- In a foster-care review under Social Services Law § 392(6), “best interests of the child” does not authorize treating foster parents and a fit biological parent as starting from equal footing.
- A court may not deny custody to a fit parent merely because a foster home appears more advantageous; a threshold showing of unfitness or extraordinary circumstances is required before considering placement with a non-parent over a parent.
- A child’s long-term bonding with foster parents is a relevant consideration but does not, standing alone, constitute an extraordinary circumstance sufficient to displace a fit parent.
- Appellate review should respect Family Court’s credibility and factual determinations in custody matters absent legal error or abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that, in foster-care review proceedings, custody cannot be awarded to foster parents over a fit biological parent based solely on the child’s attachment to the foster family or a comparative judgment that the foster placement is better; without a threshold showing of unfitness or extraordinary circumstances, the fit parent’s custody claim prevails.


Matter of Michael B., 604 N.E.2d 122 (N.Y. 1992)