You are here: / / NON-RESPONDENT FATHER’S APPEAL OF THE PLACEMENT OF HIS CHILDREN WITH...
,

NON-RESPONDENT FATHER’S APPEAL OF THE PLACEMENT OF HIS CHILDREN WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES WAS NOT MOOT; THE CHILDREN HAD BEEN PLACED WITH RELATIVES; PLACEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT, AS OPPOSED TO WITH RELATIVES, TRIGGERS THE POSSIBLE FUTURE TERMINATION OF FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined non-respondent father’s appeal of the placement of his children with the department of family and children’s services was not moot. The children had been placed with relatives. Placement with the department of family and children’s services, as opposed to with relatives, triggers the possible termination of father’s parental rights:

… [T]he Social Services Law provides that, whenever a child “shall have been in foster care for [15] months of the most recent [22] months . . . the authorized agency having care of the child shall file a petition” to terminate parental rights unless, as relevant here, “the child is being cared for by a relative” … . Thus, we agree with the father that his appeal from the order moving his children from relative placement to foster care is not moot because that change in placement “may, in future proceedings, affect [his] status or parental rights” …  by altering the obligations of petitioner with respect to a future petition to terminate the father’s parental rights…. . Matter of Shdaya B. (Rahdasha B.–Carlton M.), 2023 NY Slip Op 01599, Fourth Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: Here the non-respondent father’s appeal of the placement of his children with the department of family and children’s services was not moot. The children had been placed with relatives. Placement with the department, as opposed to with relatives, triggers the possible future termination of father’s parental rights.

 

You might also like
APPLICATION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED. NO SHOWING OF DEFENDANT’S TIMELY AWARENESS OF THE INJURIES.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Plaintiff Was Unable to Raise a Question of Fact About Whether Her Injuries Were Related to a Preexisting Condition
Failure to Instruct the Jury on the Sole Proximate Cause Defense Required Reversal of Plaintiff’s Verdict
Trial Court Properly Pierced the Corporate Veil/Criteria for Review of a Bench Trial and for Piercing the Corporate Veil Explained
WILL THAT CANNOT BE FOUND IS PRESUMED REVOKED, HERE PETITIONER DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE LINKING DEFENDANT TO A BURGLARY EXCEPT A PARTIAL FINGERPRINT FOUND AT THE SCENE WHICH ONLY MATCHED 15 TO 22.5% OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF DEFENDANT’S INKED PRINT; THE BURGLARY CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE DESPITE THE VICTIM’S TESTIMONY THAT HE DID NOT SEE A KNIFE (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF, AGE 61, WAS HIRED FOR AS A CORRECTIONS OFFICER BUT RESIGNED AFTER... ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE’S SANDOVAL APPLICATION WAS DISCUSSED IN CHAMBERS AND...