THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED TIME FOR OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW THE NEGLECT PETITION AND CANCEL THE FACT-FINDING HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have granted petitioner’s request to withdraw the neglect petition and cancel the fact-finding hearing without allowing time for objections to be raised:
We agree with the AFC that Family Court erred in granting petitioner’s application to dismiss the neglect petition without allowing any time for objections to be raised. We are cognizant that, “ordinarily[,] a party cannot be compelled to litigate and, absent special circumstances, discontinuance should be granted” … . However, one should be given an opportunity to present any such special circumstances or any other arguments concerning the application, such as the effect upon a subject child’s welfare … , whether prejudice should attach to the discontinuance … or whether another party should be permitted, in the court’s discretion, to commence a neglect proceeding (see Family Ct Act § 1032 [b] …). Because Family Court dismissed the petition without allowing the parties — including the father as a nonrespondent parent — to present any arguments regarding petitioner’s application for a discontinuance, we remit this matter to allow them the opportunity to do so. Matter of Lauren X. (Daughn X.), 2023 NY Slip Op 03732, Third Dept 7-6-23
Practice Point: Although a party’s application to discontinue an action, here a neglect petition, should ordinarily be granted, here the judge should have allowed time for objections before granting the application.