You are here: / / Imposition of Separate and Contradictory Permanency Goals for Father and...

Imposition of Separate and Contradictory Permanency Goals for Father and Mother Disallowed

In reversing Family Court, the Third Department determined the imposition of separate and contradictory permanency goals violated Family Court Act 1089 [d] [2] [i]:

At the end of the hearing, Family Court continued the children’s placement and approved petitioner’s goal of reunification as to the mother only. As to the father, the court disapproved the goal of reunification, directed petitioner to commence a permanent neglect proceeding to terminate his parental rights and suspended his supervised visitation.  *  *  *

Family Court erred by imposing separate and contradictory permanency goals on the mother and father.  Upon concluding at the end of a permanency hearing that a child is not to be returned immediately to a parent, the court must determine whether the permanency goal should be approved or modified and may select among five statutory permanency goals (see Family Ct Act § 1089 [d] [2] [i]; …).  These “goal[s] are listed as alternatives, with the court to choose only one.  Nothing in the statute indicates that the court may select and impose on the parties two or more goals simultaneously” … .  The statute contemplates the commencement of termination proceedings against a parent only when the permanency goal is “placement for adoption” (Family Ct Act § 1089 [d] [2] [i] [B]). To require such proceedings as to one parent where, as here, the permanency goal is reunification with the other parent is not only inconsistent with the statutory goals but also with the overall goal of permanent neglect proceedings, to further the children’s best interests by freeing them for adoption when positive parental relationships no longer exist … .  In the Matter of Julian P, 512450, 3rd Dept, 5-30-13

 

 

 

You might also like
COURTS HAVE ONLY A LIMITED POWER TO REVIEW AN ARBITRATOR’S RULING; HERE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE FOUND THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HER AUTHORITY BY ORDERING BACK PAY FOR A REINSTATED COUNTY EMPLOYEE (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANTS FAILED TO MOVE FOR A MISTRIAL BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S ALLEGED BEHAVIOR PRIOR TO THE VERDICT; THE ALLEGED BEHAVIOR WAS NOT SO WRONGFUL OR PERVASIVE AS TO JUSTIFY SETTING ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE CONCEPTS OF ‘OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE’ AND ‘HARMLESS ERROR’ DISCUSSED IN DEPTH; THE MAJORITY FOUND THE EVIDENCE OVERWHELMING AND THE ERROR HARMLESS; THE CONCURRENCE FOUND THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT OVERWHELMING BUT FOUND THE ERROR HARMLESS UNDER A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS; THE DISSENT FOUND THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT OVERWHELMING AND THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS (THIRD DEPT).
SUPREME COURT WAS BOUND TO FOLLOW A FIRST DEPARTMENT DECISION BECAUSE THERE WERE NO ON-POINT DECISIONS FROM THE THIRD DEPARTMENT OR THE COURT OF APPEALS; HOWEVER THE THIRD DEPARTMENT IS NOT SO BOUND; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
Substantive Issue Raised by Petitioner Had Not Been Addressed in a Prior Proceeding Which Had Been Dismissed—Current Proceeding Therefore Not Barred by Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel
No Standing to Bring Judicial Dissolution Action; Could Not Demonstrate 50% Ownership​
Failure to Move to Dismiss Indictment on Speedy Trial Grounds Constituted Ineffective Assistance of Counsel—Inexcusable Post-Indictment Delay Required Dismissal
PETITIONER WAITED EIGHT MONTHS WITHOUT RECEIVING A DECISION ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF HIS GRIEVANCE BEFORE FILING AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE DENIAL; PETITIONER WAS ENTITED TO THE “FUTILITY EXCEPTION” TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT HE EXHAUST ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE TURNING TO THE COURTS (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Negligence and Fraudulent Misrepresentation Causes of Action Can Not Be Based... Mother’s Prior Consent to Placement with Sister Did Not Preclude Mother’s...