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
HERE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THEY WERE SEXUALLY ABUSED DECADES AGO IN MASSACHUSETTS AND SUED UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT WHICH SERVES TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; ORDINARILY THE BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES TO OUT-OF-STATE TORTS REQUIRING THE ACTION TO BE TIMELY UNDER BOTH NEW YORK AND THE FOREIGN STATE’S LAWS; HERE THE “RESIDENT EXCEPTION” APPLIED BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF’S WERE NEW YORK RESIDENTS AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED ABUSE; THEREFORE THE ACTION NEED ONLY BE TIMELY UNDER NEW YORK’S CHILD VICTIMS ACT (FOURTH DEPT).
Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel Does Not Apply When Biological Mother Opposes Paternity Petition
Court’s Erroneous Ruling that Defendant Did Not Have Standing to Contest a Search Was Followed by Defendant’s Entering a Guilty Plea—Because Defendant May Not Have Pled Guilty Had the Suppression Motion Been Held and Suppression Granted, the Matter Was Remitted for a Suppression Hearing (After Defendant Had Completed His Sentence)
THE DWI COUNTS WERE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER WHICH MUST BE DISMISSED AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION REVERSED, NO FOUNDATION FOR TWO CATEGORIES OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
People’s Delay In Providing Bill of Particulars Did Not Require Dismissal Under Speedy Trial Statute
SHIFTING BURDENS OF PROOF AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS CLARIFIED; PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED; PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS THEORIES OF LIABILITY REFUTED BY DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CONSTITUTED AN ABANDONMENT OF THOSE THEORIES (FOURTH DEPT).
LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER A LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH 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

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