You are here: / / Child Should Have Been Placed with Grandmother—Placement Criteria...
,

Child Should Have Been Placed with Grandmother—Placement Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have denied the petition to place the child with the grandmother.  The court explained the placement procedure and criteria:

Family Court Act § 1017 sets out the steps to be followed in determining the appropriate placement of a child when the child is initially removed from his or her home. When the decision to remove the child was made, the DSS was obligated to locate the child’s relatives, including her grandmother, and inform them of the pendency of the proceeding and of the opportunity for becoming foster parents or for seeking custody or care of the child (see Family Ct Act § 1017[1]). The Family Court was then required to determine if the child could suitably reside with any such relative (see Family Ct Act § 1017[1][a], [b]). If a suitable relative existed, the Family Court would either place the child with that relative or with the local commissioner of social services with directions to allow the child to reside with that relative pending his or her approval as a foster parent (see Family Ct Act § 1017[2][a]). Only if no suitable relative could be located would the Family Court consider whether another placement would be appropriate (see Family Ct Act former § 1017[2][b]). With respect to an out-of-state relative, Social Services Law § 374-a requires that an ICPC home study must first be conducted before placing the child with that individual.

“One purpose of Family Court Act § 1017 is to help safeguard the infant’s physical, mental and emotional well-being. . . Placement with a suitable relative can help the child by maintaining family ties and reducing the trauma of removal. In making a determination of placement [the] Family Court must consider not only the custodian’s ability to provide adequate shelter, but all the facts and circumstances relevant to the child’s best interest” … . Matter of Paige G, 2014 NY Slip Op 05182, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

You might also like
ROBBERY CONVICTION UNSUPPORTED BY PROOF OF INTENT TO PERMANENTLY, AS OPPOSED TO TEMPORARILY, DEPRIVE OWNER OF PROPERTY; HEARING NECESSARY TO ASSESS DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL ARGUMENTS; PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL.
CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE LANDOWNER FOR A SLIP AND FALL IN THE LESSEE’S SHOPPING CENTER PARKING LOT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE LANDOWNER HAD SOME REPAIR RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE LEASE; ALTHOUGH THE ORIGINAL SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT DESCRIBED THE WRONG PROPERTY ADDRESS, THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, SERVED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, WAS TIMELY UNDER THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria Where Defendant Not Specifically Mentioned in Allegedly Defamatory Statement
THE 2011 ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT WAS REVOKED BY THE 2017 REVOCATION OF THE ACCELERATION RENDERING THE 2018 FORECLOSURE ACTION TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR SIMILAR STABBING OF THE SAME VICTIM IF THE DEFENDANT CHOSE TO TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
​ THE EXISTENCE OF A WRITTEN CONSULTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES RELATING TO SALES AND MARKETING DID NOT, PURSUANT TO THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE, PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF AN ALLEGED ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES RELATING TO THE FORMATION AND OWNERSHIP OF A BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT). ​
CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS PERFORMED AN UNWANTED C-SECTION BIRTH STATES AN INTENTIONAL TORT SUBJECT TO THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT).
THE RESTAURANT’S INSURANCE POLICY COVERED INJURY INCURRED IN THE OPERATION OF THE “PREMISES” AND THEREFORE DID NOT COVER INJURY CAUSED BY A RESTAURANT EMPLOYEE WHO WAS DELIVERING FOOD BY BICYCLE; IF THE POLICY HAD USED THE WORD “BUSINESS” RATHER THAN “PREMISES,” THE OFF-PREMISES INJURY WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED (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

Proof of “Physical Injury” Was Legally Insufficient Material Misrepresentation Justified Rescission of Policy