You are here: / / THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, AGREEING WITH THE SECOND, DETERMINED THE ADMINISTRATION...
, , , ,

THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, AGREEING WITH THE SECOND, DETERMINED THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE A NONRESPONDENT MOTHER WHO HAD BEEN ABUSED BY RESPONDENT FATHER IN THE CHILD’S PRESENCE; THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE A NONRESPONDENT MOTHER IS ONLY TRIGGERED WHEN THE COURT ORDERS THE CHILD REMOVED FROM THE HOME, NOT THE CASE HERE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, considering the appeal as an exception to the mootness doctrine, determined the court did not have the authority under the Family Court Act to order the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) to supervise a so-called “nonrespondent” mother who had been abused by respondent father in the presence of the 14-month-old child. By all accounts mother was “a good mother” and “very strong [and] hard-working.” Yet over the course of six months mother was subjected to 15 announced and unannounced home visits by an ACS caseworker who searched every room, the contents of the refrigerator, and inspected the child’s body:

As noted by the Sapphire W. Court [237 AD3d 41, Second Dept, 2-5-25] “in 2015, the Legislature enacted sweeping legislation that amended various statutes, including Family Court Act § 1017, in order to provide nonrespondent parents with greater participation in abuse or neglect proceedings, while also expand[ing] the options available to Family Court judges when craft[ing] appropriate orders respecting the rights of non-respondent parents [and] assuring the safety and well being of children who are the subjects of the proceedings . . . . Among other things, the legislation clarifie[d] the language of Family Court Act § 1017 by referring specifically to non-respondent parent, relative or suitable person as potential resources a court may consider after determining that a child must be removed from his or her home” … .

We agree with the sound reasoning in Matter of Sapphire W. and hold that Family Court Act §§ 1017 and 1027(d) do not permit supervision of a nonrespondent parent who has been caring for the child, in the absence of a court-ordered removal of the child. We further concur with the Second Department that, “[c]onsidering the intrusive and potentially traumatic impact of ACS involvement in a family’s life, the disproportionate involvement of Black and Hispanic children in the child welfare system cannot be ignored” … . Matter of R.A. (A.R.), 2025 NY Slip Op 04295, First Dept 7-24-25

Practice Point: The Administration for Children’s Services’ (ACS’) authority to supervise a nonrespondent mother who was abused by respondent father in the child’s presence is only triggered if and when the court orders the removal of the child from the home, not the case here. All agreed mother was “a good mother,” yet she was subjected to 15 announced and unannounced searches of her home and inspections of her child over the course of six months.

 

You might also like
In a Hybrid Action, the Causes of Action Seeking Money Damages Were Distinct from the Causes of Action Seeking Annulment of Town a Resolution/Four-Month Statute of Limitations Did Not Apply to Causes of Action Seeking Money Damages
DEFENDANT UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
AFTER TWICE ADMITTING OWNERSHIP OF THE AREA OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THEIR ANSWER TO DENY OWNERSHIP AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN (FIRST DEPT).
Cause of Action for Fraud Based Upon Alleged Misrepresentation of Insurance Coverage Not Stated
Court’s Role In Reviewing a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Explained
SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE CLUB AND THE SECURITY COMPANY IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CLUB COULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE CLUB, WHETHER THE CLUB WAS THE SPECIAL EMPLOYER OF THE BOUNCERS AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO VICARIOUS LIABILITY, AND WHETHER THERE WAS DRAM SHOP ACT LIABILITY (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE PROBATION CONDITION PROHIBITING ASSOCIATION WITH GANGS WAS STRICKEN BECAUSE THE CONDITION WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE OR DEFENDANT’S REHABILITATION; THE ISSUE SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND A LACK OF PRESERVATION (FIRST DEPT).
CLAIM AGAINST THE BANKRUPT’S INSURER IS NOT BARRED BY THE INSURED’S DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY (FIRST 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

FILING A REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION CONSTITUTED TAKING PROCEEDINGS FOR... THERE IS NO BRIGHT-LINE MINIMUM HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL FOR AN ELEVATION HAZARD...