Summary
In Matter of Elizabetta C., 60 Misc.3d 603 [Fam Ct, Clinton County, June 19, 2018], this Court was faced with the same question of what standard to apply when a non-respondent parent seeks release of a child as a dispositional option.
Summary of this case from In re John A.Opinion
06-19-2018
In the MATTER OF ELIZABETTA C. and Shailynn C. Children Under Eighteen Years of Age Alleged to be Neglected by Kayla C. and Cody C., Respondents.
Clinton County Department of Social Services, Plattsburgh, (Thomas H. Webb III, Esq., of counsel), Matthew E. Douthat, Esq., Plattsburgh, with and for Kayla C. Niles, Bracy and Mucia, Plattsburgh (Joseph R. Mucia, Esq., of counsel), with and for Cody C. Lauren Parnes, Esq., Plattsburgh, with and for Joseph C. Meredith A. Neverett, Esq., Plattsburgh, Attorney for the Children
Clinton County Department of Social Services, Plattsburgh, (Thomas H. Webb III, Esq., of counsel), Matthew E. Douthat, Esq., Plattsburgh, with and for Kayla C.
Niles, Bracy and Mucia, Plattsburgh (Joseph R. Mucia, Esq., of counsel), with and for Cody C.
Lauren Parnes, Esq., Plattsburgh, with and for Joseph C.
Meredith A. Neverett, Esq., Plattsburgh, Attorney for the Children
Timothy J. Lawliss, J.Joseph C. (hereinafter "Non–Respondent Father") and Kayla C. (hereinafter "Respondent Mother") are the parents of Elizabetta C. (d/o/b xx/xx/xxxx) and Shailynn C. (d/o/b xx/xx/xxxx). Respondent Mother is married to Cody C.
On March 26, 2018 the Clinton County Department of Social Services (hereinafter "the Department") filed a petition pursuant to Article 10 of the Family Court Act alleging that Respondent Mother neglected three children including Elizabetta and Shailynn. On that same date, the Department filed a petition against Mr. C. alleging that he had neglected five children including Elizabetta and Shailynn. At the initial appearance on the petitions, Non–Respondent Father intervened pursuant to Family Court Act § 1035(d). On Non–Respondent Father's application, the Court assigned counsel to represent him.
On May 29, 2018, Mr. C. and Respondent Mother made substantial admissions to the petitions and consented to findings of neglect. Essentially, Mr. C. and Respondent Mother admitted that they regularly and repeatedly used marijuana and cocaine during times when they were responsible for the care of their children and that their use of these drugs placed the children's emotional, mental and/or physical well-being in imminent danger of becoming impaired. Based upon their voluntary admissions and consent, the Court found that the subject children were neglected children as that term is defined by Family Court Act § 1012(f)(i)(B).
Thereafter, the Court conducted a dispositional hearing. During the dispositional hearing, the Department, Respondent Mother, Mr. C. and the Attorney for the Children advocated for placement of the children with the children's maternal grandmother, Sarah C. and her paramour, Harold M. The parties advocating for this disposition did not admit a scintilla of evidence regarding Non–Respondent Father nor did they ever mention Non–Respondent Father during their closing arguments. No evidence was admitted regarding any pre-existing FCA article six orders. During the dispositional hearing, Non–Respondent Father, although represented by counsel, remained silent. His counsel did not make an opening statement, did not offer any evidence and did not make a closing argument. Non–Respondent Father did not indicate, through counsel, that he supported the Department's position.
Although Sarah C. and Harold M. testified during the dispositional hearing, no party asked either of them if they were willing to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court. See , FCA § 1055(a)(ii).
--------
The first question presented to the Court is how to interpret Non–Respondent Father's request to intervene and subsequent silence. Family Court Act § 1035(d) provides that a non-respondent parent has "the right to appear and participate in the proceeding as an interested party intervener for the purpose of seeking temporary and permanent release of the child under this article or custody of the child under article six of this act, ..." Essentially the non-respondent parent can intervene for two purposes: (1) to seek release of the child under article ten; or (2) to seek custody of the child under article six. See also , FCA §§ 1052(a)(ii) & (vii). In order to obtain custody under article six, the non-respondent parent must file a petition under article six. See , FCA §§ 651(c–1) & 1052(a)(vii). Because section 1035(d) provides for only two purposes to intervene and the second purpose is subject to a condition precedent, the filing of an article six petition, the Court concludes that when an article six petition is not filed the non-respondent parent intervener, may only seek the release of the child. Given Non–Respondent Father's intervention and his failure to file an article six petition, the Court concludes that Non–Respondent Father intervened for purposes of seeking the release of his children to him.
The next question presented concerns the utter lack of evidence admitted related to Non–Respondent Father. It has long been held that it is a fundamental principle of New York law that a parent has a claim of custody to his or her child superior to that of all others unless it is established that he is unfit to assume his parental duties or some other type of extraordinary circumstances exist. In re Jamie J., 30 N.Y.3d 275, 67 N.Y.S.3d 78, 89 N.E.3d 468 [2017] ; Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys , 40 N.Y.2d 543, 387 N.Y.S.2d 821, 356 N.E.2d 277 [1976] ; Matter of Perry v. Perry , 160 A.D.3d 1144, 73 N.Y.S.3d 801 [3d Dept. 2018] ; Matter of Nevaeh MM. , 158 A.D.3d 1001, 71 N.Y.S.3d 207 [3d Dept. 2018] ; and Matter of Connie VV. v. Cheryl XX. , 156 A.D.3d 1147, 66 N.Y.S.3d 750 [3d Dept. 2017]. This overriding principle of law has been controlling in a number of contexts. See, In re Jamie J., 30 N.Y.3d at 279, 67 N.Y.S.3d 78, 89 N.E.3d 468 [2017] (Family Court Act 10–A permanency hearing); Matter of Suarez v. Williams , 26 N.Y.3d 440, 23 N.Y.S.3d 617, 44 N.E.3d 915 [2015] (non-parent custody action); Matter of Michael B. , 80 N.Y.2d 299, 590 N.Y.S.2d 60, 604 N.E.2d 122 [1992] (custody of a child voluntary placed, but not freed); Matter of Connie VV. v. Cheryl XX , 156 A.D.3d at 1148, 66 N.Y.S.3d 750 [3d Dept. 2017] (non-parent custody action); Matter of Devon EE. , 125 A.D.3d 1136, 4 N.Y.S.3d 340 [3d Dept. 2015] (combined Family Court Act article 6 and Family Court Act article 10 dispositional hearing); Matter of James NN. v. Cortland County Dept. of Social Services , 90 A.D.3d 1096, 934 N.Y.S.2d 555 [3d Dept. 2011] (Family Court Act article ten non-respondent parent custody action for child in foster care); and Matter of Kevin C. , 288 A.D.2d 311, 734 N.Y.S.2d 452 [2d Dept. 2001] (Family Court Act article 10 disposition). Parents who are fit to raise their child are constitutionally entitled to do so. In re Jamie J., 30 N.Y.3d at 280, 67 N.Y.S.3d 78, 89 N.E.3d 468 [2017] ; Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys , 387 N.Y.S.2d 821, 356 N.E.2d at 281 [1976] ; Matter of Nevaeh MM., 158 A.D.3d at 1002–1003, 71 N.Y.S.3d 207 [2018] ; Matter of McBride v. Springsteen—El , 106 A.D.3d 1402, 967 N.Y.S.2d 768 [3d Dept. 2013] ; Matter of Marx v. Tucker , 36 A.D.3d 1125, 827 N.Y.S.2d 773 [3d Dept. 2007] ; and In re Dayshaun W. , 133 A.D.3d 1347, 20 N.Y.S.3d 808 [4th Dept. 2015].
Given a fit parent's constitutional right to raise their children, the Court holds, that once a parent intervenes in an Article 10 action, the Court may not place the child without the intervening parent's consent, unless the party advocating placement demonstrates that the intervening parent is unfit to provide proper care for the child or that some other type of extraordinary circumstances exist. In this case, the Department not only failed to demonstrate unfitness or any other type of extraordinary circumstances, but failed to even allege that the Non–Respondent Father was unfit to care for the child or that some other type of extraordinary circumstances exist.
This Court may not rely on its own historical memory or take judicial notice of events outside of the record. See, Matter of La Bier v. La Bier , 291 A.D.2d 730, 738 N.Y.S.2d 132 [3d Dept. 2002]. Furthermore, although this Court may clarify an issue, it may not make the record. See, Matter of Kyle FF. , 85 A.D.3d 1463, 926 N.Y.S.2d 196 [3d Dept. 2011].
On this record, the Court concludes that it has no alternative but to release the subject children to their Non–Respondent Father and shall issue an Order of Disposition in accordance with this Decision.
SO ORDERED