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
IN THIS STATUTORY RAPE CASE WHERE THE VICTIM WAS FIVE YEARS YOUNGER THAN DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM LEVEL TWO TO LEVEL ONE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S PROOF THAT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO THE DEFENDANTS WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE ATTORNEY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO DEFENDANT STATING THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION WITH NEW DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
DISTRIBUTOR’S AND SELLER’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENT DESIGN ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY AND THE DANGER WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SECOND DEPT).
THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 WERE NOT PROVEN; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DRIVER/OWNER OF THE MIDDLE VEHICLE IN THIS CHAIN-REACTION REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE IS NOT LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, SET ASIDE AN IN-COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN A DIVORCE ACTION, NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF, STIPULATION REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL COULD NOT TESTIFY THE STAIRWAY VIOLATED ANY STATUTE OR REGULATION, THE EXPERT COULD HAVE TESTIFIED THE SLIPPERY CONDITION VIOLATED A CUSTOM IN THE INDUSTRY AS REPRESENTED BY THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING MATERIALS STANDARDS; THE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING (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