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
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A FOOTING FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE WHICH HAD BEEN REMOVED; ALTHOUGH THE CITY APPROVED THE REMOVAL OF THE POLE IT PLAYED NO ROLE IN ITS REMOVAL; THEREFORE THE CITY DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION AND THE LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE RELIEVED THE CITY OF LIABILITY (THIRD DEPT).
Criteria for Common-Law Indemnification Explained
ON APPEAL, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD DID NOT FULFILL HIS OBLIGATION TO CONSULT WITH THE CHILDREN TO DETERMINE THEIR WISHES OR TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN WHY CONSULTATION WAS NOT POSSIBLE; HE WAS RELIEVED OF HIS ASSIGNMENT (THIRD DEPT).
A NEW APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION OF A STORAGE FACILITY SUBMITTED WHILE THE CHALLENGE TO A PRIOR APPLICATION WAS PENDING REQUIRED A NEW SITE PLAN REVIEW OR A WRITTEN DETERMINATION WAIVING A NEW REVIEW; MATTER REMITTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY IN RETURN FOR A SENTENCE WHICH WAS LATER DETERMINED TO BE UNAUTHORIZED; DEFENDANT THEN CONSENTED TO A RESENTENCE WHICH WAS LONGER THAN THAT ORIGINALLY PROMISED; BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT EXPRESSLY AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HER PLEA, THE RESENTENCE WAS VACATED AND THE MATTER REMITTED; THE SENTENCING JUDGE CAN FASHION A SENTENCE WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORIGINAL PROMISE BY REDUCING THE OFFENSE CHARGED (THIRD DEPT).
14-MONTH DELAY IN THE TRANSCRIPTION OF THE RECORD DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).
Fact that Prosecutor Had Represented the Defendant in the Past Did Not Require Disqualification—No Substantial Risk of an Abuse of Confidence
Participation in One’s Own Business, Even If the Business Generates No Income, Can Render One Ineligible for Unemployment Benefits

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...