You are here: / / THE CHILD’S FOSTER PARENTS WERE PERSONS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE...
, ,

THE CHILD’S FOSTER PARENTS WERE PERSONS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD AND WERE ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE THE CHILD WAS REMOVED FROM THEIR CARE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the foster parents, as persons legally responsible for the care of the child, were entitled to a hearing before the child was removed from their care:

Family Court Act § 1028(a) provides that “[u]pon the application of the parent or other person legally responsible for the care of a child temporarily removed under this part . . . , the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the child should be returned,” with two exceptions not relevant here … . Family Court Act § 1028(a) further provides that “[e]xcept for good cause shown, such hearing shall be held within three court days of the application and shall not be adjourned” … .

The phrase “person legally responsible” “includes the child’s custodian, guardian, [or] any other person responsible for the child’s care at the relevant time” … . “The Court of Appeals, in interpreting Family Court Act § 1012(g), has held that ‘the common thread running through the various categories of persons legally responsible for a child’s care is that these persons serve as the functional equivalent of parents'” … . Further, “a person may act as the functional equivalent of a parent even though that person assumes temporary care or custody of a child,” as long as “the care given the child [is] analogous to parenting and occur[s] in a household or ‘family’ setting” … . “Factors to be considered in determining whether an applicant is a person legally responsible for the care of a child include ‘(1) the frequency and nature of the contact, (2) the nature and extent of the control exercised by the [applicant] over the child’s environment, (3) the duration of the [applicant’s] contact with the child, and (4) the [applicant’s] relationship to the child’s parent(s)'” … .

Here, the evidence in the record was sufficient to support a determination that the foster parents were persons legally responsible for the care of the child. The evidence demonstrated that the child, eight years old at the time of the foster parents’ application, had been under the foster parents’ care for most of his life. . Matter of Samson R. (Christopher R.), 2024 NY Slip Op 02710, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: Here the foster parents had cared for the eight-year-old for most of his life. They were “persons legally responsible for the care of the child” and therefore were entitled to a hearing before removal of the child.

 

You might also like
THE CJA FORM WAS PUT IN EVIDENCE TO PROVE WHERE DEFENDANT LIVED, WHICH WAS AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL-POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON CHARGE; BUT THE CJA EMPLOYEE WHO TESTIFIED WAS NOT THE EMPLOYEE WHO CREATED THE DOCUMENT; BECAUSE THE CJA EMPLOYEE COULD NOT BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT THE CREATION OF THE DOCUMENT, ITS ADMISSION VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).
Driver of Middle Car in Chain Collision May Not Be Negligent
THE RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ALLOWING A VETERINARIAN’S OFFICE TO BE SUED IN NEGLIGENCE WHEN A PATRON WAS BITTEN BY A DOG IN THE WAITING ROOM DID NOT EXTEND TO A RESTAURANT OWNER WHO ALLOWS PATRONS TO BRING THEIR LEASHED DOGS TO THE RESTAURANT; THE STRICT LIABILITY “NOTICE OF VICIOUS PROPENSITIES” STANDARD APPLIED TO THE RESTAURANT OWNER (SECOND DEPT).
RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS MADE AWARE OF A JUROR’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE DELIBERATIONS AND THE CONTENTS OF A NOTE FROM THE JURY; THE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGES TO TWO JURORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DNA TESTING OF GUM DISCARDED BY THE DEFENDANT WHILE IN CUSTODY WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER AN EMPTY MILK CRATE ON A CARPETED FLOOR; THE CONDITION WAS DEEMED “OPEN AND OBVIOUS” AS A MATTER OF LAW ENTITLING DEFENDANTS TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY ISSUED TREE PIT PERMITS FOR THE SIDEWALK ABOVE A SUBWAY STATION; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN THE SUBWAY STATION BELOW THE SIDEWALK WHEN A PIECE OF CONCRETE FELL; THE CITY DID NOT CLAIM IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (TREE PIT PERMITS) (SECOND DEPT).
Evidence of Photo-Array Identification Properly Allowed to Counter Inference Line-Up Was Suggestive (Defendant Restrained in Line-Up)
ALTHOUGH A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER IS GENERALLY NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES TO A WORKER UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 241(6), HERE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, BY CONTRACT, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFETY AT THE WORKSITE AND SUPERVISED THE WORK; THEREFORE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER WAS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND POTENTIALLY LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND 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

RESIDENTS WHO DO NOT LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE CHALLENGED FENCE DO NOT... THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S AFFIRMATION IN THIS MED MAL CASE DID NOT ADDRESS...