You are here: / / FAMILY COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT A PERMANENCY HEARING (RE: ...

FAMILY COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT A PERMANENCY HEARING (RE: PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE) AFTER THE UNDERLYING NEGLECT PETITION (WHICH LED TO TEMPORARY PLACEMENT) HAS BEEN DISMISSED.

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scudder, over a two-justice dissent, determined Family Court had jurisdiction to conduct a permanency hearing (re: placement in foster care) even though the underlying neglect petition which led to temporary placement of the child was dismissed:

We … conclude, based upon the plain language of the provisions of Family Court Act article 10-A, that the court obtains jurisdiction as a result of a placement with petitioner pursuant to section 1022 (see § 1088), and that the court is required to make a determination whether to return the child to the parent based upon the best interests and safety of the child, including whether the child would be at risk of abuse or neglect if the child were to return to the parent (see § 1089 [d] [1], [2] [i]). Thus, we conclude that the court retained jurisdiction to conduct the permanency hearing despite the dismissal of the neglect petition. Moreover, our interpretation of the statutory provisions of article 10-A comports with the longstanding principle that “an overarching consideration always obtains for children to be returned to biological parents, if at all possible and responsible . . . When that cannot be done, the emphasis shifts to securing permanent, stable solutions and settings”… . Matter of Jamie J. (Michelle E.C.), 2016 NY Slip Op 07424, 4th Dept 11-10-16

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT A PERMANeNCY HEARING (RE: PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE) AFTER THE UNDERLYING NEGLECT PETITION (WHICH LED TO TEMPORARY PLACEMENT) HAS BEEN DISMISSED)/NEGLECT (FAMILY COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT A PERMANENCY HEARING (RE: PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE) AFTER THE UNDERLYING NEGLECT PETITION (WHICH LED TO TEMPORARY PLACEMENT) HAS BEEN DISMISSED)/PERMANENCY HEARING (FAMILY COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT A PERMANENCY HEARING (RE: PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE) AFTER THE UNDERLYING NEGLECT PETITION (WHICH LED TO TEMPORARY PLACEMENT) HAS BEEN DISMISSED)/SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (FAMILY COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT A PERMANENCY HEARING (RE: PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE) AFTER THE UNDERLYING NEGLECT PETITION (WHICH LED TO TEMPORARY PLACEMENT) HAS BEEN DISMISSED)

You might also like
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INSURER WAS TIMELY NOTIFIED OF THE ASBESTOS-EXPOSURE CLAIM AND WHEN THE INJURY-IN-FACT OCCURRED PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
“Falling Objects” Protection Afforded by Labor Law 240 (1) Explained
SOMEONE WAS TRYING TO OPEN THE DOOR TO DEFENDANT’S HOME AND SHE SHOT THROUGH THE DOOR, KILLING HER BOYFRIEND; DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A “LAWFUL TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF A WEAPON” JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; STRONG DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE CRITERIA FOR IMPOSING THE MAXIMUM RESTITUTION SURCHARGE OF 10% WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT).
Statutory Moratorium On Rate Appeals Applied Retroactively to All Appeals Prior to April, 2015
Injury When Stepping Off a Ladder Not Actionable under Labor Law 240(1)—Injury Not Related to the Need for the Ladder
PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEGLECT PETITION WAS PROPERLY MAILED TO MOTHER AND MOTHER PRESENTED EVIDENCE REBUTTING THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT; A HEARING ON WHETHER MOTHER WAS PROPERLY SERVED IS REQUIRED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE AMENDED STATUTE CHANGING THE CRITERIA FOR NEGLECT BASED ON MARIHUANA USE WENT INTO EFFECT TWO DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING AND WAS NOT APPLIED TO THE FACTS; MATTER REMITTED (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

PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION-BASED DISCRIMINATION,... FATHER DID NOT ABUSE THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED...