You are here: / / BY STATUTE FAMILY COURT MAY NOT SET A GOAL OF ADOPTION BY SOCIAL SERVICES...

BY STATUTE FAMILY COURT MAY NOT SET A GOAL OF ADOPTION BY SOCIAL SERVICES WITHOUT ORDERING THE FILING OF A PETITION TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS; HERE FAMILY COURT ATTEMPTED TO SET THE INCOMPATIBLE GOALS OF ADOPTION AND REUNIFICATION WITH THE PARENT; THE INTENT OF FAMILY COURT IS CLEAR (HOPED-FOR REUNIFICATION) BUT THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE METHOD CHOSEN BY THE COURT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the goals set by Family Court, moving toward adoption of the child while setting another hearing to see if reunification of the child with mother is possible, were incompatible under the statutes. The intent of Family Court was clear, but the method was not allowed by statute. The matter was sent back for further proceedings:

… [W]e find that Family Court erred in modifying the permanency goal to placement for adoption without directing petitioner to commence a proceeding to terminate respondent’s parental rights. Family Ct Act § 1089 (d) (2) (i) provides that a court may impose one of five specified permanency goals, including “placement for adoption with the local social services official filing a petition for termination of parental rights” … . Nothing in the statutory language permits a permanency goal of placement for adoption to be imposed in the absence of a concurrent petition to terminate the respondent’s parental rights. Further, the statute does not permit “the court [to] select and impose on the parties two or more goals simultaneously” … .

Here, in addition to stating that the permanency goal was being changed to placement for adoption and that no immediate termination proceeding would be commenced, Family Court also stated that another permanency hearing would be scheduled in six months and that it was the court’s “expectation and hope” that the goal could be changed back to reunification at that time. The express language of the permanency order imposes only one goal. However, the effect of the failure to commence termination proceedings and the court’s directions to petitioner regarding services and diligent efforts was to impose two concurrent, contradictory goals of placement for adoption and reunification. Matter of Joseph PP. (Kimberly QQ.), 2019 NY Slip Op 09347, Third Dept 12-26-19

 

You might also like
EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT CONCLUSION THAT MOTHER WAS OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE FATHER HAD INJURED THE CHILD, CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT FINDINGS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY HAD DUTY TO DEFEND IN AN ACTION STEMMING FROM A SHOOTING BY THE INSURED, SHOOTING MAY HAVE BEEN UNINTENTIONAL (RECKLESS).
THE HOME-BUILDER’S CONTRACT WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, THE HOMEOWNERS’ BREACH OF CONTRACT COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND HOWEVER; CONTRACTOR ENTITLED TO RECOVER IN QUANTUM MERUIT IF, UPON REMITTAL, IT IS DETERMINED THE CONTRACTOR’S BREACH, IF ANY, WAS NOT SUBSTANTIAL (THIRD DEPT).
WHERE THE SENTENCING JUDGE ORDERS DOCCS TO ENROLL DEFENDANT IN A SHOCK PROBATION PROGRAM, DOCCS CANNOT CONSIDER THE ORDER TO BE MERELY A RECOMMENDATION WHICH CAN BE IGNORED (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE IN THE FATAL SHOOTING OF THE VICTIM WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW OF THE SHOOTER’S INTENT TO KILL THE VICTIM, AS OPPOSED TO AN INTENT TO ROB OR ASSAULT (THIRD DEPT).
Review of Action Brought Under General Municipal Law Section 4 (Re: Unlawful Use of Tax, Water and Sewer Funds) Must Be by Article 78, Not Appeal
HERE THE “PRIMARY JURISDICTION DOCTRINE” DID NOT APPLY TO REQUIRE A STAY TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (PSC) TO DETERMINE WHETHER “STRAY VOLTAGE” WAS CAUSING INJURY TO PLAINTIFF’S CATTLE AND, IF SO, HOW BEST TO MITIGATE OR REMEDIATE; THE PSC HAS NO SPECIAL EXPERTISE REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF STRAY VOLTAGE ON CATTLE; THE ISSUES ARE BEST HANDLED BY A COURT, DESPITE THE COMPETING EXPERT OPINIONS (THIRD DEPT).
THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE A VIDEO CONTAINING IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL PRIOR TO FILING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RENDERED THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE AND THE STATEMENT OF READINESS ILLUSORY; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD 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

THE SUBCONTRACTORS DID NOT SIGN THE PRIMARY CONTRACT WHICH INCLUDED AN ARBITRATION... IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BASED UPON...