Petitioner and respondent entered into a relationship in 2006 and, one year later, announced their engagement [FN1]. At the time, however, this was a purely symbolic gesture; same-sex couples could not legally marry in New York. Petitioner and respondent lacked the resources to travel to another jurisdiction to enter into a legal arrangement comparable to marriage, and it was then unclear whether New York would recognize an out-of-state same-sex union.

...

Shortly thereafter, the couple jointly decided to have a child and agreed that respondent would carry the child. In 2008, respondent became pregnant through artificial insemination. During respondent's pregnancy, petitioner regularly attended prenatal doctor's appointments, remained involved in respondent's care, and joined respondent in the emergency [*3]room when she had a complication during the pregnancy. Respondent went into labor in June 2009. Petitioner stayed by her side and, when the subject child, a baby boy, was born, petitioner cut the umbilical cord. The couple gave the child petitioner's last name.

The parties continued to live together with the child and raised him jointly, sharing in all major parental responsibilities. Petitioner stayed at home with the child for a year while respondent returned to work. The child referred to petitioner as "Mama B."

In 2010, the parties ended their relationship. Initially, respondent permitted petitioner regular visits with the child. In late 2012, however, petitioner's relationship with respondent deteriorated and, in or about July 2013, respondent effectively terminated petitioner's contact with the child.

Subsequently, petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking joint custody of the child and regular visitation. Family Court appointed an attorney for the child. That attorney determined that the child's best interests would be served by allowing regular visitation with petitioner.

Respondent moved to dismiss the petition, asserting that petitioner lacked standing to seek visitation or custody under Domestic Relations Law § 70 as interpreted in Alison D. because, in the absence of a biological or adoptive connection to the child, petitioner was not a "parent" within the meaning of the statute. Petitioner and the attorney for the child opposed the motion, contending that, in light of the Legislature's enactment of the Marriage Equality Act (see L 2011, ch 95; Domestic Relations Law § 10-a) and other changes in the law, Alison D. should no longer be followed. They further argued that petitioner's longstanding parental relationship with the child conferred standing to seek custody and visitation under principles of equitable estoppel.