You are here: / / FAMILY COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER VISITATION WITH THE CHILDREN’S...
,

FAMILY COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER VISITATION WITH THE CHILDREN’S FORMER FOSTER MOTHER; A STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ORDER VISITATION WITH A “LEGAL STRANGER” (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, over an extensive and comprehensive dissent, determined Family Court properly allowed visitation with the children by their former foster mother. The dissent argued the court did not have the power to order visitation with the former foster mother, a “legal stranger:”

Commonly, visitation plans for children in foster care involve parents, grandparents or siblings, all of whom have standing to commence visitation proceedings. However, in this case, there was no visitation petition or proceeding before the court at the time of the permanency hearing. Rather,the court ordered visitation between the children and the former foster mother in order to advance the children’s “well-being” as it is required to do under Family Court Act § 1086. To accomplish that, the court gave special attention to the unique, undisputed circumstances of these children: (1) the children suffered from PTSD and other mental health issues following removal from their biological mother in 2016; (2) they each improved remarkably during the nearly six years they were cared for by the former foster mother; (3) removal from her care in December 2021 was traumatic for them; (4) at the time of the order, the children had only been in their current foster home for a few months; (5) ACS [Administration for Children’s Services] and the foster care agency had previously consented to and facilitated visits with the former foster mother for approximately two years; and (6) the children remained strongly bonded to her as the only adult who had been a consistent positive presence in their lives at the time of the 2023 permanency hearing that resulted in the order.

… [A]s Family Court explained on the record, “there is no legal path where the children end up in [the] care” of the former foster mother. However, the court expressed concern that discontinuing all contact with her at this time would be contrary to their well-being. The court noted that it was troubled “that we didn’t have more details [presented at the hearing] about the children’s therapy and medication” and that there was no testimony that “cutting off all contact with [the former foster mother] . . . is therapeutically beneficial.” Under these circumstances, Family Court’s continuation of visitation with the former foster mother was an appropriate exercise of its authority under Family Court Act § 1089, was tailored to the particular circumstances of these children, and was in keeping with the legislative goal of ensuring foster children’s well-being. Matter of AL.C., 2024 NY Slip Op 03799, First Dept 7-11-24

Practice Point: Here Family Court properly ordered visitation with the children by their former foster mother, based primarily upon the children’s improvement while in her care and the strong bond between her and the children. The dissent argued the court did not have the authority to order visitation with a “legal stranger.”

 

You might also like
THE RECORDING AND DISCLOSURE OF INMATE PHONE CALLS DO NOT VIOLATE THE INMATES’ RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS WERE FACING SUSPENSION OF THEIR LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW WAS NOT PROTECTED AS FAIR AND TRUE LEGAL REPORTING PURSUANT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 74; THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION PER SE, DISPARAGEMENT AND VIOLATIONS OF THE LANHAM ACT AND GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 (FIRST DEPT).
Doctrine of Primary Assumption of Risk Applies to Informal Game of Catch on a Paved Handball Court
STAND-ALONE EXECUTIVE LAW 63 (12) CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD REINSTATED AGAINST DONALD TRUMP ET AL.
PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD PASSED OUT AT A CONCERT, REFUSED ASSISTANCE IN WALKING TO THE BACK OF THE THEATER SO THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN COULD CHECK HIS BLOOD PRESSURE AND PULSE; WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO WALK TO THE BACK OF THE THEATER HE PASSED OUT AGAIN AND FELL, HIS FACE HITTING THE FLOOR; THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO ASSIST PLAINTIFF AFTER HE REFUSED THEIR HELP AND THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING BEAM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT OTHERWISE PROTECTED FROM FALLING OBJECTS; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
RARE CASE IN WHICH A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND THE CITY MAY RENDER THE CITY LIABLE FOR A DELAYED RESPONSE TO A 911 CALL; BECAUSE THE DELAY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF A DELIBERATE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION, THE DOCTRINE OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY MAY NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).
New York Has Not Adopted the “First Clause” Doctrine for Interpretation Contracts with Conflicting Provisions

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, UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW, SUFFICIENTLY PLED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH... WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION, THE NONRECOURSE CLAUSE PRECLUDED...