You are here: / / CHILDREN DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN NEGLECT PR...

CHILDREN DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS.

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the children in the neglect proceeding did not receive effective assistance of counsel from the attorney for the child (AFC). The AFC took positions contrary to the wishes of two of the children (Brian and Alyssa):

The Rules of the Chief Judge provide that an AFC “must zealously advocate the child’s position” (22 NYCRR 7.2 [d]), even if the AFC “believes that what the child wants is not in the child’s best interests” … . There are two exceptions to this rule: (1) where the AFC is convinced that the “child lacks the capacity for knowing, voluntary and considered judgment”; or (2) where the AFC is convinced that “following the child’s wishes is likely to result in a substantial risk of imminent, serious harm to the child” … . Here, there is no dispute that the trial AFC took a position contrary to the position of two of the subject children … . * * *

Inasmuch as the trial AFC failed to advocate Brian and Alyssa’s position at the fact-finding hearing, he was required to determine that one of the two exceptions to the Rules of the Chief Judge applied, as well as “[to] inform the court of the child[ren]’s articulated wishes” … . Here, the trial AFC did not fulfill either obligation … . Indeed, the record establishes that neither of the two exceptions applied. Matter of Brian S. (Scott S.), 2016 NY Slip Op 05464, 4th Dept 7-8-16

 

FAMILY LAW (CHILDREN DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS)/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, CHILDREN DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS)/NEGLECT (CHILDREN DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS)/EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (FAMMILY LAW, CHILDREN DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS)

You might also like
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S GRABBING AT HIS WAISTBAND AND RUNNING DID NOT PROVIDE REASONABLE SUSPICION, THE MAJORITY HELD DEFENDANT’S STOPPING HIS CAR IN THE STREET AND AGGRESSIVELY APPROACHING A WOMAN IN ANOTHER CAR PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR (FOURTH DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE “MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION,” THE HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT COMPLAINT BY A PRIEST AGAINST THE DIOCESE OF BUFFALO WAS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
The One-Year-and-Ninety-Day Time Limit for Bringing Suit Under the Public Authorities Law Is a Statute of Limitations, Not a Condition Precedent to Suit, and Is Therefore Subject to the Six-Month Extension for Recommencing a Suit Which Was Dismissed Without Prejudice Provided by CPLR 205(a)
ALTHOUGH FATHER, WHO HAD BEEN IN THE MILITARY, HAD NOT PROCURED HOUSING FOR HIMSELF AND HIS UNDER-SIX-MONTH-OLD SON, HE DEMONSTRATED HE WAS WILLING AND ABLE TO CARE FOR THE CHILD; THEREFORE HIS CONSENT TO ADOPTION BY PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS WAS REQUIRED AND CUSTODY WAS PROPERLY AWARDED TO HIM; THE DISSENT ARGUED FATHER’S FAILURE TO PROCURE HOUSING RENDERED HIM UNABLE TO CARE FOR THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WALKED BY POLICE OFFICER HOLDING HIS WAISTBAND, OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REQUESTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW HIM HIS HANDS REVEALING A GUN, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED.
THE CITY OF ROCHESTER LOCAL LAW WHICH PURPORTED TO TRANSFER THE POWER TO DISCIPLINE POLICE OFFICERS TO THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD (PAB) IS INVALID AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT).
Visitation Details Should Not Have Been Left to Supervising Agency

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

RISK LEVEL REDUCED FROM THREE TO TWO; DEFENDANT AND VICTIM WERE CLOSE IN AGE... NEGLIGENT RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.