Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The record supports Family Court's determination that extraordinary circumstances justified the award of custody of respondent's son to petitioner, the child's cousin. The court properly concluded that extraordinary circumstances existed by virtue of several factors (see, Matter of Hansen v. Post, 167 A.D.2d 702, 703, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 807). Those factors include the unfortunate disruption of custody caused by respondent's mental illness (see, Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 N.Y.2d 543, 549); respondent's history of unfitness as a parent and neglect of the child (see, Matter of Hansen v Post, supra, at 704; Matter of Callahan v. Denton, 114 A.D.2d 663) ; and respondent's recent relapse while on medication (see, Matter of Kreslein v. Hanley, 157 A.D.2d 659). Further, both the Law Guardian and the Probation Department raised serious doubts about respondent's ability to care for the child and recommended that custody remain with petitioner (see, Matter of Zamoiski v Centeno, 166 A.D.2d 781, 782, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 803; Matter of Borst v. Borst, 137 A.D.2d 890, 891). Having found extraordinary circumstances, the court properly awarded custody to petitioner based upon the child's best interests.