From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of David

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 21, 1995
221 A.D.2d 241 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

November 21, 1995

Appeal from the Family Court, Bronx County (Marjory Fields, J.).


The Family Court's sua sponte dismissal of the petitions for extension of placement without granting a hearing and discharge of the children from foster care to the custody of their maternal grandmother violated Family Court Act §§ 1055 and 1052 (a), respectively, and was contrary to the best interests of the children ( Matter of H./M. Children, 217 A.D.2d 164 [decided herewith]). Although section 1055 (b) (ii) is silent as to whether a hearing is required prior to dismissal of a petition for extension of placement, this Court held in Matter of Ingrid R. ( 209 A.D.2d 177, 178) that it was "improvident to dismiss the petition for an extension of foster care placement without a hearing and in effect leave the child in legal limbo." Such is the case here where several elements of the children's service and permanency plans warranted careful review and the failure to do so was likely to be harmful, in light of the court's disposition.

This error was compounded by discharging the children from foster care to the permanent custody of their maternal grandmother, a violation of section 1052 (a). That section authorizes placement with "a relative or other suitable person" in accordance with the requirements of section 1055 (a), which limit such placement to an initial period of one year and, as noted, require a hearing ( Matter of H./M. Children, supra).

Respondent's contention that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction over the children in 1994 because their placement had lapsed in May 1992 is without merit in that it ignores the fact that the Commissioner of Social Services filed new neglect petitions in January 1993, thereby conferring subject matter jurisdiction ( Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Clara DeJ.], 186 A.D.2d 33, 34).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli and Williams, JJ.


This is another example of bureaucracy interfering, at public expense, in a rational family relationship, despite an intelligent result rendered by an experienced Family Court Judge. (See, Matter of H./M. Children, 217 A.D.2d 164, 170 [Kupferman, J., concurring] [decided herewith].)


Summaries of

Matter of David

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 21, 1995
221 A.D.2d 241 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of David

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DAVID S. and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 21, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 241 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
635 N.Y.S.2d 178

Citing Cases

Matter of Chad D

Enforcement of the order was stayed pending resolution of this appeal. The Family Court improvidently…

In the Matter of Linda J. v. Nakisha P

Based on evidence presented during the neglect hearing and without taking testimony from respondent regarding…