Child Abuse & Neglect

Published on: February 17, 2020

Court Did Not Err in Deciding to Seek Adoption Placement for Children of Mother Struggling With Substance Abuse – In re Nevaeh L., 2019 NY Slip Op 8329 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case the Appellate Division considered whether the lower court properly concluded that the permanency goal in a child protective proceeding was to be placement for adoption instead of reunification with the mother.

When a child is removed from the care of his (or her) parents due to findings of neglect, the goal is for the agency to find a permanent solution for the child so that the child can move forward in a stable, healthy environment. Ideally that would mean that the child is reunified with one or both of his parents. The agency would create a service plan for the parent that would offer resources to help the parent address issues that led to the finding of neglect and removal of the child. For example, if, as in Nevaeh, the parent was addicted to alcohol or drugs, the agency would offer the parent resources such as treatment options and counseling. The plan would also provide programs that would help the parent with parenting skills. Typically, the agency would also work with the parent to set up a visitation schedule so that the parent had regular contact with the child.

The progress that the parent makes with the service plan would determine what the agency recommends as the permanency goal for the child. A parent who does not actively participate in the program or who does not show progress is less likely to be reunified with his child. Instead, the agency may conclude that working toward reunification with the parent is not in the best interests of the child. The agency would then consider another permanency goal such as placement with a relative or adoption. While the parent is given a significant amount of time to work on making improvements in order to regain custody of the child, at some point the agency must make a final decision as to whether reunification is possible.

Published on: January 13, 2019

Court Discussed Alleged Mistreatment of Child During Shoplifting Incident

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of N. v NY Office of Children & Family Services

June 18, 2018

NY Slip Op 04379

Published on: December 4, 2018

Mother Appeals Neglect Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of CW

2018 NY Slip Op 06546

October 3, 2018

Published on: November 4, 2018

Court Decides if ACS Made Reasonable Efforts to Reunite Family

by Stephen Bilkis

In Re L.

2018 NY Slip Op. 06966

October 18, 2018

Published on: July 16, 2018

Court Hears Case Regarding Child Neglect

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of Michael A.

2018 NY Slip Op 05154

July 11, 2018

Published on: June 11, 2017

In re: Donnisha S.

by Stephen Bilkis

April 19,2017

In October of 2017, the Administration of Child Services (ACS) filed an Article 10 proceeding on behalf of the child Donnisha, against the paternal grandmother and uncle.

A petition for neglect states that Ms. PW (grandmother), and Mr. S (uncle), are responsible for the child’s care under Family Court Act (FCA 1012). The petition alleges that the defendants are failing to properly care for the child (neglect), and are inflicting corporal punishment.

Published on: March 12, 2017

Matter of Ashantewa W.L

by Stephen Bilkis

NY Slip 00975

February 8, 2017

This is an appeal by a mother from a Family Court matter in Westchester County. The Order found that the mother was guilty of neglect. It was ordered that the decision of the prior court was affirmed.

Published on: September 24, 2016

Appellate Court Holds that Substantive Evidence Required to Prove Neglect Allegation

by Stephen Bilkis

In Re: T.G. a Minor Allegedly Neglected by P.G. – No. NN-20507/15

This matter came to the court on inquest after the respondent failed to appear on three different occasions. The petition alleges that the respondent neglected her child and failed to provide proper guardianship and supervision.

In a child neglect case, the petitioner is required to prove by a preponderance of material and relevant evidence that the subject child’s emotional, physical and mental well-being was impaired (FCA 1046 (b)(1). It must also be proven that the harm to the child was directly caused by the respondent’s failure to provide a minimum degree of care (Nicholson v. Scopetta, 3 NY 3d 357, 368 (2004).

Published on: August 3, 2016

Court Rules on Child Neglect Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

In a child neglect proceeding brought pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the parties stipulated to have the Nassau County Department of Probation investigate the underlying circumstances relating to the alleged child neglect and to thereafter issue a report, including its recommendations. The parties further agreed to allow the court to use the Probation Department’s report “to aid it in rendering a decision” in the matter.

The Probation Department, which was not a party to the stipulation, produced a report which did not, however, contain any recommendations. By order dated April 30, 1984, then Family Court Judge PC, before whom the proceeding was pending, directed the Probation Department to make a definite recommendation. When the Probation Department informed Judge PC that it did not consider it appropriate for it to make recommendations prior to the court’s making of a finding of neglect, Judge PC reiterated her order. The Probation Department thereupon commenced the instant proceeding in the Supreme Court to annul Judge PC’ order, to prohibit its enforcement, and to obtain a declaration that Family Court Act §§ 1047 and 1048 preclude it from furnishing reports to the Family Court prior to completion of a fact-finding hearing. Judge PC cross-moved to dismiss the petition, inter alia, on the ground that a CPLR article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition is not available to obtain the relief sought.

Initially, appellant (Judge PC) raises the question as to whether a CPLR article 78 proceeding is the appropriate vehicle to challenge the Family Court’s direction since prohibition is an “extraordinary remedy” that is available against a court only when it acts without jurisdiction or exceeds its authorized powers. Purported errors of law, which are not properly reviewable by a CPLR article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition, are often incorrectly asserted to have been made in excess of jurisdiction

Published on: August 1, 2016

Court Decides Neglect Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The Presentment Agency moves, pursuant to a motion for summary judgment, for an order adjudging an after-born child to be permanently neglected, upon the ground that the parents of the two older siblings of the after-born child have previously been adjudicated unable to provide proper and adequate care for them.

The facts of the case is as follows: On March 27, 1998, the two older children of the parties, SH and MH, ages four years and two years respectively, were removed by Nassau County DSS and an application for return pursuant to FCA §1028 was filed by the parents. The Court tried that matter from April 24, 1998 through May 8, 1998, resulting in a denial of the application to return.

Thereafter, the fact finding hearing concerning the two older children was commenced on August 31, 1998 and did not conclude until May 7, 2001. The reason for the lengthy hearing was that counsel for one of the parties had an extended illness, that the Mother had been committed to Pilgrim State Hospital for a long period of time and that the Father had been a voluntary resident at various times at the Northport VA Hospital, psychiatric unit.