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
Plea Allocution Insufficient—Plea Vacated in Absence of Motion to Withdraw or Vacate
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ONLINE PLATFORM WHICH CONNECTED PERSONS WITH CERTAIN SKILLS TO THOSE SEEKING TO HIRE FOR ODD JOBS WAS NOT AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP, CLAIMANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED IN PENNSYLVANIA, INFORMED FAMILY COURT HE WISHED TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE IN THE CUSTODY MATTER; FAMILY COURT DENIED THE REQUEST STATING THE COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER; THE 3RD DEPARTMENT HELD FATHER, WHO HAD NOT CHALLENGED THE COURT’S JURISDICTION, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO APPEAR BY PHONE (THIRD DEPT).
DISNEY WAS DEDUCTING ROYALTY PAYMENTS MADE BY AFFILIATES WHICH DID NOT PAY NEW YORK TAXES; THE TAX LAW WAS DESIGNED TO PLUG THAT “LOOPHOLE” AND THE DEDUCTIONS WERE PROPERLY DISALLOWED (THIRD DEPT).
VIOLATION OF A DIRECTIVE BY THE PRISON DID NOT WARRANT ANNULMENT OF THE DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION (THIRD DEPT).
NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S (DOE’S) DENIALS OF PETITIONERS’ APPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSION TO THE CITY’S SPECIALIZED HIGH SCHOOLS (SHS’S) WERE NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT). ​
ABSENCE OF APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WAS NOT JURISDICTIONAL AND WAS THEREFORE WAIVED BY THE GUILTY PLEA; ABSENCE OF DA’S SIGNATURE ON THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT DID NOT INVALIDATE IT; CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR CRIMES ARISING FROM ONE CONTINUOUS INCIDENT WERE NOT ILLEGAL (THIRD DEPT).
People v Rudolph (Requiring Sentencing Court to Consider Youthful Offender Status for All Eligible Defendants) Applied Retroactively to 2008 Conviction (on Direct Appeal)

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...