This matter deals with Michael D. who is a child that is under the age of eighteen and has been allegedly neglected by Tiffany D. This case is being heard in the Family Court of New York in Bronx County.
Case Background
The child in this case, Michael D. is only two years old. On the 5th of August, 2010, the attorney for the child moved to show case that the Administration of Children’s Services along with its contract agency, Little Flower Children and Family Services of New York were in contempt for disobedience of mandates that were made by the court. A New York Family Lawyer said the attorney for the child alleges that both the ACS and Little Flower agency violated the orders that were made in this court on the fourth of March, 2010 and the tenth of May, 2010, and these violations impaired and were prejudice against the child in the pending neglect proceeding.
The Little Flower Agency filed an affirmation in opposition to the order to show cause on the 17th of August, 2010. Little Flower requested that the motion filed by the attorney for the child be denied. The grounds for their motion was that the court did not name the agency by its corporate name in the orders at issue and the orders at issue were not served to the agency and that the agency was not a part of the pending neglect proceeding. The agency further argues that they did their best to comply with the directions that were made by the court.
The attorney for ACS filed an affirmation in opposition to the motion seeking civil contempt and enforcement on the 8th of September, 2010. The ACS requested that the motion be denied on both substantive and procedural grounds. A New York Custody Lawyer said the ACS further argued that the punishment of $250 per day for each day that the order’s were violated was out of the power of the court.
Court Discussion and Decision
Neither the agency nor ACS has raised any type of factual dispute as to whether or not they complied with the court order that stated the child was to have supervision in the foster home that he was placed in. The order also required that early intervention services be provided to the child while he was in the foster home.
There are no issues of fact being argued in this case and for this reason the court does not require a fact finding hearing. The facts of the case are that the child was placed in foster care based on the fact that the mother uses cocaine and is not attending a rehabilitative program.
While in foster care the child was removed from the foster mother that had previously cared for him because she was moving. The case planner of the agency failed to notify the child’s attorney of this move. A Queens Grandparent’s Rights Lawyer said the attorney then filed a motion to have the child stay with his current foster mother who had been more than caring for him and opened her home to all of his therapists. The order from the court stated that the child would be allowed to move to Schenectady. The CASA agency was assigned to help the agency with this move and the agency was to provide the court with a written report as to each step that was made to ensure the child was returned to the foster mother.
The agency failed to do this and this order of contempt was filed. A Queens Guardianship Law Lawyer said in review of the case it is found that the Agency failed to follow the orders of the court and this caused unnecessary trauma in the child’s life. For this reason the court will hold the ACS and Agency, Little Flower in civil contempt of court and a fee of $250 will be imposed.
If you need legal advice of any kind contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Our offices are located in New York City and we offer free consultations for anyone visiting one of our offices for the first time.