You are here: / / CHILDREN DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN NEGLECT PR...

CHILDREN DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS.

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the children in the neglect proceeding did not receive effective assistance of counsel from the attorney for the child (AFC). The AFC took positions contrary to the wishes of two of the children (Brian and Alyssa):

The Rules of the Chief Judge provide that an AFC “must zealously advocate the child’s position” (22 NYCRR 7.2 [d]), even if the AFC “believes that what the child wants is not in the child’s best interests” … . There are two exceptions to this rule: (1) where the AFC is convinced that the “child lacks the capacity for knowing, voluntary and considered judgment”; or (2) where the AFC is convinced that “following the child’s wishes is likely to result in a substantial risk of imminent, serious harm to the child” … . Here, there is no dispute that the trial AFC took a position contrary to the position of two of the subject children … . * * *

Inasmuch as the trial AFC failed to advocate Brian and Alyssa’s position at the fact-finding hearing, he was required to determine that one of the two exceptions to the Rules of the Chief Judge applied, as well as “[to] inform the court of the child[ren]’s articulated wishes” … . Here, the trial AFC did not fulfill either obligation … . Indeed, the record establishes that neither of the two exceptions applied. Matter of Brian S. (Scott S.), 2016 NY Slip Op 05464, 4th Dept 7-8-16

 

FAMILY LAW (CHILDREN DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS)/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, CHILDREN DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS)/NEGLECT (CHILDREN DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS)/EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (FAMMILY LAW, CHILDREN DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS)

You might also like
NO DEMONSTRATION A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT WAS THE ONLY FAIR INTERPRETATION; THEREFORE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WERE PROPERLY DENIED.
THE PETITIONERS (THREE NYS LEGISLATORS AND AN ADVOCACY GROUP) DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS ALLOWING ISOLATION AND QUARANTINE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC (FOURTH DEPT).
SCHIZOPHRENIA DIAGNOSIS DID NOT JUSTIFY AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (FOURTH DEPT).
Resentencing Defendant to Original Sentence (Imposing No Post Release Supervision) Did Not Require Defendant’s Presence
IT IS REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR A JUDGE TO NEGOTIATE A PLEA DEAL WITH A CODEFENDANT IN EXCHANGE FOR TESTIMONY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT).
Re: False Arrest and False Imprisonment—Allegations Sufficient to Survive Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause Action
HERE THE LANGUAGE IN THE RELEASE WAS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND NONE OF THE TRADITIONAL FACTORS WHICH INVALIDATE A CONTRACT WERE PRESENT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT, WHO HAD SERVED THE FULL FOUR YEARS OF HIS 1 1/3 TO FOUR YEAR SENTENCE FOR DWI, COULD NOT BE SENTENCED TO MORE PRISON TIME FOR A PROBATION VIOLATION (FOURTH 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

RISK LEVEL REDUCED FROM THREE TO TWO; DEFENDANT AND VICTIM WERE CLOSE IN AGE... NEGLIGENT RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.