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
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; DEFENDANT WAS ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING HE RESIDED AT AN ADDRESS DIFFERENT FROM THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (SECOND DEPT).
POLICE OFFICERS’ TESTIMONY BASED UPON DEBRIEFING GANG MEMBERS WAS INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY AND THE POLICE OFFICERS, WHO WERE QUALIFIED AS GANG EXPERTS, ACTED AS IMPERMISSIBLE SUMMATION WITNESSES, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE FRAMING COMPANY HIRED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND GIVEN SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK WAS LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURY AS A “STATUTORY AGENT” OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
Accelerated Relief Pursuant to CPLR 3213 (Judgment In Lieu of Complaint) Should Not Have Been Granted—the Document at Issue Did Not Include a Promise to Pay On Demand or at a Definite Time
Defendant Entitled to Summary Judgment–Activity (Routine Cleaning) Not Covered by Labor Law 240 (1)—Re: Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence: Equipment Provided by Defendant Not Defective; Defendant Did Not Have Authority to Control Plaintiff’s Work
THE SECOND TRIAL VIOLATED THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY PROHIBITION; THE FIRST TRIAL COULD HAVE CONTINUED WITH ELEVEN JURORS AFTER A JUROR WAS DISQUALIFIED DURING DELIBERATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
​ DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OR DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE, SUBMITTED AFTER A JURY TRIAL AND JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF, WARRANTED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (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 © 2025 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...