You are here: / / ON APPEAL, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD DID NOT FULFILL HIS OBLIGATION TO...
, ,

ON APPEAL, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD DID NOT FULFILL HIS OBLIGATION TO CONSULT WITH THE CHILDREN TO DETERMINE THEIR WISHES OR TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN WHY CONSULTATION WAS NOT POSSIBLE; HE WAS RELIEVED OF HIS ASSIGNMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, relieving the attorney for the child (AFC) of responsibility for the appeal, determined the AFC did not fulfill his responsibilities under the Rules of the Chief Judge (22 NYCRR 7.2):

The Rules of the Chief Judge require that an AFC in a custody or visitation proceeding “must zealously advocate the child’s position” (22 NYCRR 7.2 [d]; see 22 NYCRR 7.2 [c]), and further provide that, “[i]f the child is capable of knowing, voluntary and considered judgment, the [AFC] should be directed by the wishes of the child, even if the [AFC] believes that what the child wants is not in the child’s best interests” … . The Rules establish only two circumstances in which an AFC may adopt a position that does not reflect the child’s wishes — specifically, when he or she “is convinced either that the child lacks the capacity for knowing, voluntary and considered judgment, or that following the child’s wishes is likely to result in a substantial risk of imminent, serious harm to the child” … . …

The AFC here wholly failed to fulfill the obligations imposed by these provisions upon this appeal. The only stated basis for his determination to advocate for the children’s best interests rather than for their wishes was their ages. However, it was the AFC’s obligation to “consult with and advise the child[ren] to the extent of and in a manner consistent with [their] capacities” … . At 10, the older child was certainly old enough to be capable of expressing her wishes, and whether the younger child, at 6, had the capacity to do so was not solely dependent upon her calendar age, but also upon such individual considerations as her level of maturity and verbal abilities … . … Here, the AFC’s brief is devoid of any indication of the children’s wishes, with no reference to 22 NYCRR 7.2 or to the analysis that this rule requires an AFC to undertake before advocating for a position that does not express the child’s wishes … . …

Additionally, although the record reveals that the AFC met with the children during the Family Court proceeding, it does not appear that he met or spoke with them again during the appeal … . Matter of Jennifer VV. v Lawrence WW., 2020 NY Slip Op 02136, Third Dept 4-2-20

 

You might also like
Five-Month Delay in Notifying Carrier Not Justified by Insured’s Belief Lawsuit Was Fraudulent
THE IMPOUNDMENT OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE BEEN NECESSARY AND THE PROCEDURES FOR AN INVENTORY SEARCH OF THE VEHICLE WERE NOT FOLLOWED; THE SEIZED HANDGUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF A DESIGNATION REQUIRED INVALIDATION OF THE DESIGNATING PETITION, NOTWITHSTANDING A REASONABLE EXPLANATION OF THE ONE-DAY-LATE MAILING DUE TO COVID-19 (THIRD DEPT).
DESPITE CLAIMANT’S SIGNING A STIPULATION AGREEING TO RESIGN, A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT PROVIDED GOOD CAUSE FOR HER RESIGNATION 3RD DEPT.
NONWORKING CLAIMANT SUBJECT TO THE 75% CAP ON WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLED TO NO LESS THAN 25% LOSS OF WAGE- EARNING CAPACITY FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE DURATION OF BENEFITS; HERE A 15% LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY UPHELD.
Responsibility for Payments for a 1999 Claim (Which Was Reopened After 13 Years) Shifted from the Workers’ Compensation Carrier to the Special Fund—Rationale for the Special Fund Explained—Payments Made by Carrier Re: a 2005 Claim Were Not Partially Attributable to the 1999 Claim—Therefore the Carrier Was No Longer Responsible for Payments Re: the 1999 Claim
Where It Was Not Clear that Grand Jury Proceedings in Which a County Employee Was Directed to Appear Involved a Criminal Matter, as Opposed to Civil Misconduct or Neglect, the County Was Required to Pay for the Employee’s Defense Pursuant to Public Officers Law Section 18
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RAYMOND F AND THE CHILD; THEREFORE RAYMOND F’S REQUEST FOR A GENETIC MARKER TEST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (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

WHETHER THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL RECEIVED COMPETENT REPRESENTATION AT HER DISCIPLINARY... DISCLOSURE OF WITNESS CONTACT INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELAYED UNTIL 15...