THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THE PERSON OF AZKA J., Pursuant to SCPA Article 17-A (20-4283) — Atiqa A. petitioned this Court for her appointment as guardian of the person of her daughter, Azka J., pursuant to Article 17-A of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (“SCPA”). Atiqa A. requested that Azka J.’s father, Raj M., be appointed standby guardian, and that Azka J.’s aunt (Nida A.) and grandmother (Rubeena A.) be appointed first and second alternate standby guardians, respectively. At a hearing held before this court on January 18, 2022,1 and based on the evidence submitted, the court determined that Azka J. was a person incapable of managing her affairs by reason of intellectual and developmental disabilities and that it would be in her best interests for the court to appoint a guardian of her person (SCPA 1754[5]). The court also found that Petitioner Atiqa A. was in all respects suitable to serve as such guardian (cf. Matter of Nicholas L., NYLJ, Feb. 28, 2014, at 31 [Sur Ct, Suffolk County]). The request to appoint Azka J.’s father as standby guardian, however, was denied. In 2007, when Azka J. was just three years old, Raj M. had been the subject of a neglect proceeding at which time the Queens County Supreme Court, Criminal Term, had issued an order of protection (dated May 29,2008) forbidding Raj M. from having any contact or communication with Azka J. until August 27, 2022. Since the order of protection is currently in effect, and there has been no effort on the part of Raj M. to modify or vacate that order, this court may not appoint Mr. M. as standby guardian of Azka J. and place him in a situation in which he could violate the order by having contact with her. Additionally, it would be both imprudent and impractical to appoint as standby guardian an individual who is forbidden by court order from communicating with the person alleged to be in need of a guardian. In fact, courts have considered the existence of a current or prior order of protection as a factor when determining whether to appoint a person as guardian (see, e.g., Matter of Williams, 12 Misc 3d 1191 [A] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2006]; Matter of Candace C., 27 Misc 3d 1221 [A] [Sup Ct, Dutchess County 2010]). Therefore, Petitioner’s request to appoint Raj M. as standby guardian is denied without prejudice to Mr. M’s application for such relief to be filed after the expiration of the order of protection. If such an application is filed, the court will then consider the appropriateness of Raj M.’s appointment and his suitability as guardian.2 Accordingly, the court appoints petitioner Atiqa A. as guardian of the person of Azka J., and Nida A. as standby guardian and Rubeena A. as first alternate standby guardian, respectively, of the person of Azka J., upon their duly qualifying according to law. Decree signed. Dated: January 20, 2022
