You are here: / / Child Should Have Been Placed with Grandmother—Placement Criteria...
,

Child Should Have Been Placed with Grandmother—Placement Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have denied the petition to place the child with the grandmother.  The court explained the placement procedure and criteria:

Family Court Act § 1017 sets out the steps to be followed in determining the appropriate placement of a child when the child is initially removed from his or her home. When the decision to remove the child was made, the DSS was obligated to locate the child’s relatives, including her grandmother, and inform them of the pendency of the proceeding and of the opportunity for becoming foster parents or for seeking custody or care of the child (see Family Ct Act § 1017[1]). The Family Court was then required to determine if the child could suitably reside with any such relative (see Family Ct Act § 1017[1][a], [b]). If a suitable relative existed, the Family Court would either place the child with that relative or with the local commissioner of social services with directions to allow the child to reside with that relative pending his or her approval as a foster parent (see Family Ct Act § 1017[2][a]). Only if no suitable relative could be located would the Family Court consider whether another placement would be appropriate (see Family Ct Act former § 1017[2][b]). With respect to an out-of-state relative, Social Services Law § 374-a requires that an ICPC home study must first be conducted before placing the child with that individual.

“One purpose of Family Court Act § 1017 is to help safeguard the infant’s physical, mental and emotional well-being. . . Placement with a suitable relative can help the child by maintaining family ties and reducing the trauma of removal. In making a determination of placement [the] Family Court must consider not only the custodian’s ability to provide adequate shelter, but all the facts and circumstances relevant to the child’s best interest” … . Matter of Paige G, 2014 NY Slip Op 05182, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

You might also like
RADIOLOGIST WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ON THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEFORMITY WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE RESULTED FROM A FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE A FRACTURE. 
THE STIPULATION SETTING A DATE FOR THE CLOSING ON DEFENDANT’S PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY DID NOT INFORM DEFENDANT HE WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE IN DEFAULT IF THE CLOSING DID NOT TAKE PLACE BY THAT DATE; THEREFORE THERE WAS NO “TIME OF THE ESSENCE” AGREEMENT AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE DOWN PAYMENT (SECOND DEPT).
AN AGGRIEVED PARTY NEED NOT SHOW PECUNIARY LOSS TO WARRANT AN AWARD OF SANCTIONS OR ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT.
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HAD JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS FOR VACATING THE JUDGMENT, HE WAIVED ANY JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES BY PARTICIPATING IN AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH BEFORE MOVING TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT TO A ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENFORCED, PLAINTIFF HAD NO CONTROL OVER WHEN THE DEFENDANT COULD TAKE AN ACTION WHICH BREACHED THE CONTRACT, HERE THE ALLEGED BREACH BY DEFENDANT DIDN’T TAKE PLACE UNTIL AFTER THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD (SECOND DEPT).
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY PERSONNEL WERE ENGAGED IN A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION RESPONDING TO PLAINTIFFS’ 911 CALL AND THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PLAINTIFFS; MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE, WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S CONDUCT WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PROOF OF MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE TO THE CORRECT ADDRESS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INITIAL MOTION PAPERS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT PART OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; IN ADDTIION, THE PROOF OF MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT (SECOND 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

Proof of “Physical Injury” Was Legally Insufficient Material Misrepresentation Justified Rescission of Policy