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
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WARRANT FOR A DNA SWAB INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED OR FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE CONVICTIONS UNDER MULITPLE INDICTMENTS COME UP FOR REVIEW IN THE SAME SORA HEARING, THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF SEX OFFENDERS SHOULD PREPARE A SINGLE RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT ENCOMPASSING ALL THE OFFENSES (SECOND DEPT).
THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (OF THE PLAINTIFF-STUDENT) AND NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN (THE PLAINTIFF-STUDENT) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED PLAINTIFF WAS SENT TO A PRIEST NOT EMPLOYED BY THE SCHOOL FOR DISCIPLINE AND WAS MOLESTED BY THE PRIEST (SECOND DEPT). ​
Supreme Court Erred by Making Dispositive Rulings on Grounds Not Raised in the Motion Papers
PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS STAIRCASE SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE CAUSES OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRCASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE JUDGE PRECLUDED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT ABOUT WHETHER THE OTHER DOCTORS WHO CONSULTED ON PLAINTIFF’S TREATMENT DEPARTED FROM ACCEPTED PRACTICE BY FAILING TO DO FURTHER DIAGNOSTIC TESTING; IF SO, FAULT WOULD BE SHARED PURSUANT TO CPLR 1601 (SECOND DEPT).
PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW BUYERS TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT DURING THE CONTINGENCY PERIOD, BUYERS’ ACTION TO RECOVER THE DOWN PAYMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED (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...