You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, TERMINATED MOTHER’S PARENTAL...
, , , ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, TERMINATED MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS ON MENTAL-ILLNESS GROUNDS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE STATUTORILY-REQUIRED PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have terminated mother’s parental right on mental-illness grounds without the results of the statutorily-required examination. The psychologist appointed to evaluate mother (Horenstein) did not do so and rendered his opinion based upon a review of records of her hospitalization:

Pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b (6) (e), the court is required to order the parent, alleged to be mentally ill, to be examined by a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist and shall take testimony from the appointed expert … . Significantly, paragraph (c) of subdivision 6 prohibits a determination as to the legal sufficiency of the proof until such testimony is taken … . An exception exists “[i]f the parent refuses to submit to such court-ordered examination, or if the parent renders himself [or herself] unavailable . . . by departing from the state or by concealing himself [or herself] therein” … . In such instance, “the appointed psychologist or psychiatrist, upon the basis of other available information, . . . may testify without an examination of such parent, provided that such other information affords a reasonable basis for his [or her] opinion” … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that Family Court erred in proceeding with the termination of respondent’s parental rights without the statutorily-required examination. Horenstein pointed out that there was no basis to find that respondent refused to be evaluated. Nor did respondent make herself unavailable “by departing from the state or by concealing [herself] therein” … . To the contrary, her placement in CDPC was involuntary and, despite her release by December 1, 2017, no further attempt was made to schedule an evaluation. Because the statutory exception does not apply, Family Court lacked authority to determine the legal sufficiency of the proof without a contemporaneous evaluation … . Even though respondent raised no objection at the hearing, this statutory mandate requires that we remit the matter to Family Court for a new hearing and determination … . Matter of Rahsaan I. (Simone J.), 2020 NY Slip Op 01212, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

You might also like
A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BROUGHT BEFORE ISSUE IS JOINED IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (THIRD DEPT). ​
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION PRECLUDED THIS CIVIL SUIT AGAINST OFFICERS OF THE UTILITY AFTER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DETERMINED PLAINTIFF’S ELECTRICITY HAD BEEN PROPERLY CUT OFF BY THE UTILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD REPLACED THE METER (THIRD DEPT).
LABOR LAW 240(1) LIABILITY IS NONDELEGABLE AND EXTENDS TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.
THE 10-DAY PERIOD DURING WHICH PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER MUST APPLY FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS STARTED TO RUN WHEN HE LEARNED HE HAD SUFFERED PERMANENT LUNG DAMAGE, NOT WHEN HE FIRST CONTRACTED COVID; PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS UNTIMELY (THIRD DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S “INADEQUATE FALL-PROTECTION” CAUSES OF ACTION SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT FROM A NURSE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A PHYSICIAN (THIRD DEPT). ​
Where There Is Permanent Partial Disability, the Benefits Are Calculated Based Upon the Difference Between the Pre-Disability Earnings and the Actual Earnings During the Period of Disability
LANDLORD ACCEPTED TENANT’S SURRENDER OF THE PREMISES BY OPERATION OF LAW, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE STRESS CAUSED BY INTERACTION WITH CLAIMANT’S SUPERVISOR AND CLAIMANT’S HEART ATTACK (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 PERIODS OF TIME WHEN CLAIMANT WAS DEEMED TEMPORARILY PERMANENTLY DISABLED... THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WAS A RECURRENT DANGEROUS CONDITION;...