In a contested child protective and child custody proceeding, the administration for children’s services sought an order directing the removal of the child from the home of the paternal grandmother who resides in Virginia. The motion is supported by the law guardian and opposed by the parents of the child.
The administration for children’s services filed a neglect petitions against the parents of the child alleging that they neglected the child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment causing numerous marks and bruises on the child’s body. A New York Family Lawyer said the petitions allege that the child was beaten by the mother with an extension cord and punched by both parents. In addition, the petitions allege that the father is a person legally responsible for the child because of the fact that he is married to the child’s mother. Lastly, the petitions allege that the other two children of the parents are derivatively neglected children.
On the day the petitions were filed, a hearing was conducted and granted the application for the remand, directing that the child will be placed with the maternal great-grandfather and that the two younger children be placed together with kinship resources. During the months that followed the initial removal, the two younger children were moved several times and are currently in their second non-kinship foster home.
Consequently, the paternal grandmother of the other two children filed petitions seeking child custody. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the paternal grandmother also attempted to file a custody petition for the neglected child of the mother but was advised that she would not be permitted to do so since she is not his biological grandmother.
The court issued temporary orders of protection against both parents on behalf of the children, directing that they should not commit any family offenses against them. The original order directed that the father should stay away from the neglected child and refrain from having any contact with him. The orders, with numerous modifications, have been continued to date.
Afterwards, a hearing was conducted and the court denied the parents’ application for the return of the children and continued the remand. The court however granted the mother’s visitation rights with all three children and the father was granted visitation with the two younger children.
The paternal grandmother was also permitted to visit during the times scheduled for the parents.
The administration for children’s services moved an order to show cause for leave to revise the neglect petitions. The motion was opposed by the parents and the law guardian and was denied by the court. Thereafter, a Nassau County Child Support Lawyer said the administration for children’s services filed supplemental petitions containing additional allegations of neglect specifically, that respondent mother had the child in the care of inappropriate caretakers, that the father smoked marijuana in front of the children, that in the summer of 2006, while the family was staying at the home of the paternal grandmother the father struck the child with a belt buckle and that during the same period, the child was forced to sleep outside of the house on the porch on a sheet.
Apparently, the foster parents failed to bring the children for a scheduled visit at the foster care agency. The mother became angry, yelling and demanding that the children immediately be produced for the visit. The following day, the foster mother brought the two younger children for the visit with both parents. After the visit was over, the mother and the foster mother got into an argument. The mother was upset about what she perceived to be the inadequate level of care the foster mother was providing for the children. The mother screamed at and threatened to hurt the foster mother. The agency staff intervened and prevented an argument. By that time, the father was outside of the building and was not involved in the argument. He later returned at the request of the mother. In the agency case record, it revealed that the father kicked and broke the main door to the building and the mother knocked over a planter in front of the building. A police report was made as the result of the incident.
The administration for children’s services then appeared in court and made an oral application to suspend the parents’ visitation. The court consequently granted the application. Later that day, when the parents went to the agency, they were informed that their visits had been temporarily suspended. They indicated that they wished to discuss the matter with the president of the agency. He was unavailable and the parents were told to return the following day.
The following day, the parents returned to the agency and met with the senior vice president. During the course of the conversation, the parents became angry that their visits had been cancelled. The father yelled and threatened to harm anyone who got in the way of him seeing his children. He told the vice president that he would do anything to get his children back. He reportedly stated that he planned to snatch the kids next time he saw them and that no one would ever be able to find them. After the discussion grew more heated, the agency personnel placed a call to 911. The officers arrived after the parents departed and a police report was filed.
The court continued an order suspending the visits and it conduct a hearing on the administration for children’s services motion to continue the suspension of the parents’ visitation and the parents’ motion to resume the visits. At the conclusion, the court granted the administration for children’s services motion, continuing the suspension of the parents visit.
Thereafter, the administration for children’s services filed a motion for a decision without trial alleging that there are no genuine triable issues of fact, and requesting an order finding that the child, is a neglected child and that the other two children are derivatively neglected children. The mother’s counsel and the law guardian submitted affirmations in opposition to the motion. The decided and ordered that the motion was denied.
The administration for children’s services moved an order to show cause to remove the child from the grandmother’s home and remand her to the care of the commissioner. The court denied the request for relief and adjourned the motion.
The appellate division reversed the court’s order and granted the application of the administration for children’s services for a remand. The justice modified her order vacating the remand and ordering that the grandmother produce the child in court.
The paternal grandmother failed to produce the child or appear in court. The administration for children’s services and the law guardian renewed their application for a removal. In addition, they asked the court to issue a warrant for the grandmother. During the conference that ensued, the father stated that he would never permit the neglected child to be produce in New York, since it would result in her removal and remand to foster care. He stated that he would ensure that the child was removed from the country if it were necessary to keep her out of foster care.
For the reasons above, the court denied the request for a remand to renew after the Virginia court. It determines whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction or terminate or stay the proceedings originated in that state.
Every parent must take deep responsibility in raising their kids. They should give affection, care and most of all understanding to their children. If you are interested on the legalities of child custody, or need an order for protection, or have a custody issue, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for guidance.