You are here: / / HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A GUARDIAN SHOULD BE APPOINTED...
, , ,

HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A GUARDIAN SHOULD BE APPOINTED FOR MOTHER IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING, MOTHER SUFFERS FROM SCHIZOPHRENIA (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined a guardian should have been appointed for mother in the proceeding which terminated her parental rights:

It is well settled that courts cannot “shut their eyes to the special need of protection of a litigant actually incompetent but not yet judicially declared such. There is a duty on the courts to protect such litigants”… . Indeed, “[t]he public policy of this State . . . is one of rigorous protection of the rights of the mentally infirm”… . Thus, ” where there is a question of fact . . . whether a guardian ad litem should be appointed, a hearing must be conducted’ ” … , and the failure to make such an inquiry once a meritorious question of a litigant’s competence has been raised requires remittal … .

… [W]e conclude that a meritorious question of the mother’s competence was raised. It is of no moment that the mother’s attorney did not move for the appointment of a guardian ad litem inasmuch as the court may make such an appointment on its own initiative (see CPLR 1202 [a] …). …

There is no dispute that the mother, who had been diagnosed with, inter alia, schizophrenia, had been in and out of psychiatric hospitals throughout her life. Indeed, at the time of the subject child’s birth, which was two years before this termination proceeding, the mother had been committed to a psychiatric unit after being found incompetent to stand trial in a criminal court. During the course of the hearing in this proceeding, the mother was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric unit, and the matter had to be adjourned until her release. Additionally, during the mother’s brief testimony upon resumption of the hearing, the court and the AFC [attorney for the child] had to interrupt her repeatedly inasmuch as her answers to questions were nonresponsive and, at times, completely nonsensical.

Given “the magnitude of the rights at stake [in a termination proceeding], as well as the allegations of mental illness” …, we conclude that the court erred in failing to hold a hearing on whether a guardian ad litem should have been appointed for the mother. Matter of Jesten J.F. (Ruth P.S.), 2018 NY Slip Op 08812, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

You might also like
THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PROBATION OFFICER’S SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE WAS UNLAWFUL AND UNREASONABLE BECAUSE IT WAS BASED SOLELY ON AN UNCORROBORATED ANONYMOUS TIP WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, THE DISSENT DISAGREED; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE DID NOT WAIVE THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE BY SUBMITTING MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS TO THE SENTENCING COURT IN THE RELATED CRIMINAL CASE; THE RECORDS WERE SUBMITTED AS PART OF A MITIGATION REPORT WHICH IS DEEMED “CONFIDENTIAL” PURSUANT TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK ANNULMENT OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE STATE ENVIROMMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA); PETITIONERS DID NOT ALLEGE “ENVIRONMENTAL INJURY.”
Co-Executor Can Object to Final Accounting Solely By Virtue of the Executor’s Fiduciary Duty to the Estate 
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF WAS DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WHICH WAS NOT PART OF A CONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION PROJECT WHEN HE WAS ELECTROCUTED AND FELL FROM A LADDER; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DISMISSED; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED PLAINTIFF WAS “CLEANING” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1) AND WAS DOING CONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6) (FOURTH DEPT).
Counsel for Nonparty Witness Cannot Participate in Deposition
IN THIS COMMON LAW DISSOLUTION ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT BY THE CORPORATION OF HIS EXPENSES FOR DEFENDING AGAINST THE CORPORATION’S COUNTERCLAIMS, AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROHIBIT THE DEFENDANTS FROM USING CORPORATE FUNDS TO DEFEND AGAINST THE COMMON LAW DISSOLUTION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT MAY HAVE PLED GUILTY AND ACCEPTED A 16-YEAR SENTENCE IN MONORE COUNTY BECAUSE HE WAS ALREADY SENTENCED TO 14 – 24 YEARS FOR ANOTHER OFFENSE IN ONTARIO COUNTY; ON APPEAL THE ONTARIO COUNTY SENTENCE WAS REDUCED TO FOUR YEARS; MONROE COUNTY GUILTY PLEA VACATED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY MOTHER, A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE... FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO ORDER VISITATION TO...