You are here: / / HERE THE NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS WERE BROUGHT AGAINST FATHER WHO DID NOT LIVE...
,

HERE THE NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS WERE BROUGHT AGAINST FATHER WHO DID NOT LIVE WITH MOTHER AND THE CHILD; MOTHER WAS NOT A PARTY IN THE NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS; FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PLACE MOTHER UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ventura, determined Family Court did not have statutory authority to place mother, who was not a respondent in the neglect proceeding, under the supervision of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and direct that she cooperate with ACS. The neglect proceedings were brought against father (respondent), who did not live with the mother and child. Mother, a “nonrespondent,” was not a party in the neglect proceedings and the child had not been removed from her home:

This appeal presents this Court with the opportunity to decide an issue of first impression in New York involving the rights of nonrespondent parents in child neglect proceedings, to wit: whether the Family Court may place a nonrespondent custodial parent under the supervision of … [ACS] and the court, and direct the parent to cooperate with ACS in various ways, in circumstances where the respondent parent resides elsewhere and the child has not been removed from the nonrespondent parent’s home. Considering, inter alia, the well-established “interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children” … and the lack of any statutory authority permitting the challenged directives, we answer this question in the negative. Therefore, we conclude that, in this case, the Family Court improperly placed the mother under the supervision of ACS and the court, and directed her to cooperate with ACS in certain respects. * * *

… [T]he relevant provisions of Family Court Act § 1017 apply only when a court orders the removal of a child from his or her home and releases the child to the home of a nonrespondent and “noncustodial parent” … . By the plain language of the statutory text, the provisions requiring the nonrespondent parent … to “submit[ ] to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to the child” and “to cooperate” with “the child protective agency” in various ways … are only triggered “[a]fter [the] child is removed from the home” … . Here, since the court never “determin[ed] that [the] child must be removed from . . . her home” … , it did not have authority pursuant to Family Court Act § 1017 to impose the challenged directives upon the mother, no matter how “well-intended” the court’s “goals” may have been … . Matter of Sapphire W. (Kenneth L.), 2025 NY Slip Op 00662, Second Dept 2-5-25

Practice Point: Here Family Court did did not have the authority to place mother, who was not a party to the neglect proceedings against father, under the supervision of ACS.

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, THE CORPORATE DEFENDANT “APPEARED INFORMALLY” THROUGH THE CEO’S AFFIDAVIT; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT AGENCY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY TO PLAINTIFF; HOWEVER IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AGENCY DID NOT HAVE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE POLICY; THEREFORE THE TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT THE MOTION TO INTERVENE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED ANSWER WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PAPERS, A THRESHOLD SHOWING INTERVENTION WAS WARRANTED WAS MADE AND THE DENIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN “WITH LEAVE TO RENEW” (SECOND DEPT).
Default for Failure to File Note of Issue Within 90 Days of Demand Properly Excused
AN EMAIL EXCHANGE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO RESTART THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN OTHERWISE TIME-BARRED DEBT PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-101 (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FLOODING, AS OPPOSED TO WIND, CAUSED THE PROPERTY DAMAGE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE INSURER BASED UPON POLICY EXCLUSIONS (SECOND DEPT).
THE SEARCH WARRANT WHICH ALLOWED THE SEIZURE OF BUSINESS COMPUTERS, COMPUTER FILES AND BUSINESS DOCUMENTS WITH ONLY A DATE-RESTRICTION AMOUNTED TO A GENERAL WARRANT, THE SEIZED ITEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED, AND FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

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

ALTHOUGH FATHER FAILED TO APPEAR IN THE CUSTODY PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT SHOULD... THE FORECLOSURE ACTION BROUGHT IN 2011 WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE THE BANK FAILED...