John J. v. Kayla I.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), entered December 5, 2014, which, among other things, granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 5, to adjudicate petitioner as the father of a child born to respondent Kayla I.

Respondents Kayla I. (hereinafter the mother) and William I. (hereinafter the husband) are a married couple who were separated in 2011 when the mother engaged in a sexual relationship with petitioner. She became pregnant, reconciled with the husband and, in August 2012, gave birth to a child. Four days later, the child was placed in foster care and respondents were found to have derivatively neglected him. Within

Subsequently, upon recusal and reassignment of the proceeding, Family Court (Richards, J.) held a full hearing on the issue of equitable estoppel. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court rejected the husband’s argument and declined to apply the doctrine. Immediately thereafter, a trial was held on the underlying petition, after which Family Court found that petitioner had established his paternity, and an order of filiation was entered declaring him to be the father of the child. Respondents appeal, and we affirm.

Initially, we note that Family Court should have held the hearing on the issue of equitable estoppel before ordering genetic marker testing. “The fact that testing was conducted, however, does not bar the court from thereafter deciding the estoppel issue” (Matter of Juanita A. v Kenneth Mark N., 15 NY3d 1 , 6 n [2010]; see Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d 320 , 330 [2006]; Matter of Richard W. v Roberta Y., 240 AD2d 812 , 814 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 809 [1997]).

“ ‘The doctrine of equitable estoppel is a defense in a paternity proceeding which, among other applications, precludes a man . . . from asserting his paternity when he acquiesced in the establishment of a strong parent-child bond between the child and another man’ ” (Matter of Patrick A. v Rochelle B., 135 AD3d 1025 , 1026 [2016], quoting Matter of Edward WW. v Diana XX., 79 AD3d 1181 , 1182 [2010]; see Matter of Juanita A. v Kenneth Mark N., 15 NY3d at 6 ). “The courts ‘impose equitable estoppel to protect the status interests of a child in an already recognized and operative parent-child relationship’ ” (Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d at 327 , quoting Matter of Baby Boy C., 84 NY2d 91 , 102 n [1994]). While respondents rely heavily upon the husband’s efforts to support the mother during her pregnancy and to prepare for the arrival of the child, and we have said that such efforts are relevant to an equitable estoppel defense, they are ancillary to the “assumption of the actual physical and psychological burdens attendant to parenting a newborn” (Matter of Richard W. v Roberta Y., 240 AD2d at 814 ). Put differently, it is the child’s reliance upon a representation of paternity that is our primary consideration (see e.g. Matter of Dustin G. v Melissa I., 69 AD3d 1019 , 1020 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 708 [2010]).

McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.