You are here: / Family Law
,

Gabriela A’s Actions Constituted Disobedience Under PINS Criteria, Not Criminal Actions (Resisting Arrest/Obstruction of Governmental Administration) Under Juvenile Delinquency Criteria

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined, under the facts,  a “Person In Need of Supervision (PINS)” should not have been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent.  Gabriela A., a PINS who had left the non-secure facility where she was placed, apparently resisted to some extent when police officers came to return her to the facility. After the fact-finding hearing, Gabriela A was placed in a secure facility pending disposition. Family Court ultimately determined Gabriela A was a juvenile delinquent finding Gabriele A had committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the criminal offenses of obstruction of governmental administration and resisting arrest. The Court of Appeals did not rule out the procedure used by Family Court, which essentially converted a PINS proceeding to a Juvenile delinquency proceeding. Rather, the court determined, under the facts, Gabriela A’s behavior was properly characterized as PINS behavior, not criminal behavior:

The crime of resisting arrest requires that a person intentionally prevent “an authorized arrest” (Penal Law § 205.30). The restraint of a PINS pursuant to Family Court Act § 718, however, is not the same as a criminal arrest … . A PINS proceeding is fundamentally civil in nature. … Thus, a PINS who resists being restrained or transported back to a placement facility is not resisting arrest within the meaning of Penal Law § 205.30.

Next, a person is guilty of the misdemeanor of obstructing governmental administration when he or she “intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference” (Penal Law § 195.05). Probation officers qualify as “public servants” within the broad definition supplied in the Penal Law (see Penal Law § 10.00 [15]), and Gabriela A. admitted that she wanted to “make it hard” for Officer Flores and the other probation officers to handcuff and take her to the non-secure facility. On the other hand, the legislature has defined a PINS to include someone who is “habitually disobedient and beyond the lawful control of . . . lawful authority” (Family Court Act § 712 [a]). Thus, a PINS’s disobedience and obstruction of “lawful authority” is not necessarily the same as an adult’s. Since Family Court Act §§ 720 (1) and (2) forbid placement of a PINS in a secure facility, the legislature surely did not intend the type of behavior that might cause a child to be designated a PINS in the first place to become the basis for secure detention … .  Matter of Gabriela A, 2014 NY Slip Op 02376, CtApp, 4-8-14

 

,

Application for “Special Immigrant Juvenile” Status Need Only Assert Reunification with One Parent Is Not Possible

The Second Department reiterated  that an application for “special immigrant juvenile” status need only be supported by the allegation that reunification with one parent is not possible:

Pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J) (as amended by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub L 110—457, 122 US Stat 5044) and 8 CFR 204.11, a “special immigrant juvenile” is a resident alien who is, inter alia, under 21 years of age, unmarried, and “declared dependent on a juvenile court located in the United States or whom such [*2]a court has legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an agency or department of a State, or an individual or entity appointed by a State or juvenile court located in the United States” (8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][i]). For a juvenile to qualify for SIJS status, it must also be determined that reunification with “1 or both” of the juvenile’s parents is not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under state law (id.), and that it would not be in the juvenile’s best interest to be returned to his or her native country or country of last habitual residence (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][ii]). As previously determined by this Court, the “1 or both” language requires only a finding that reunification is not viable with one parent … .  Matter of Gabriel HM…, 2014 NY Slip Op 02587, 2nd Dept 4-16-14

 

Inadequate Supervision and Unsanitary Living Conditions Warranted a Neglect Finding

The Fourth Department reversed Family Court and found the three and a half year old child to be neglected.  The child wandered off out of the house and was found by a neighbor one and a half blocks away .  And the child had been living in highly unsanitary conditions:

…[A] neglected child is defined as a child less than 18 years of age “whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of his [or her] parent . . . to exercise a minimum degree of care . . . in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship, by unreasonably inflicting or allowing to be inflicted harm, or a substantial risk thereof” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). As the Court of Appeals has explained, “[t]he statute . . . imposes two requirements for a finding of neglect, which must be established by a preponderance of the evidence . . . First, there must be proof of actual (or imminent danger of) physical, emotional or mental impairment to the child . . . Second, any impairment, actual or imminent, must be a consequence of the parent’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of parental care . . . This is an objective test that asks whether a reasonable and prudent parent [would] have so acted, or failed to act, under the circumstances” … . Moreover, it is well established that “the statutory requirement of imminent danger . . . does not require proof of actual injury” …, and that “[a] single incident where the parent’s judgment was strongly impaired and the child exposed to a risk of substantial harm can sustain a finding of neglect” … . * * *

As relevant to the second basis for neglect alleged in the petition, a neglected child is defined as a child less than 18 years of age “whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of his [or her] parent . . . to exercise a minimum degree of care . . . in supplying the child with adequate food, clothing, [or] shelter . . . though financially able to do so or offered financial or other reasonable means to do so” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]). We conclude that the court’s determination that the child was not neglected based on the condition of the mother’s apartment lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record. * * * Under the … circumstances, we conclude that the unsanitary and unsafe condition of the mother’s apartment posed an imminent danger of impairment to the child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition … . Matter of Raven B, 77, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

,

Child’s Out-of-Court Statements Corroborated by Child Abuse Expert/Hearsay Provided Adequate Basis for Finding of Abuse

The Second Department determined Family Court properly ruled that a child’s out-of-court statements were corroborated by a child abuse expert:

A child’s prior out-of-court statements may provide the basis for a finding of abuse, “provided that these hearsay statements are corroborated, so as to ensure their reliability” … . “Any other evidence tending to support the reliability of the previous statements . . . shall be sufficient corroboration” (Family Ct Act § 1046[a][vi]). Validation testimony from an expert that the child’s psychological and behavioral characteristics lead the expert to conclude that the child was sexually abused may supply the corroboration of the child’s out-of-court statements necessary to make out a prima facie case of sexual abuse … . However, as with any expert opinion, the validation testimony must meet a threshold of reliability … . “The Family Court has considerable discretion in deciding whether a child’s out-of-court statements alleging incidents of abuse have been reliably corroborated” … . The Family Court’s credibility findings must be accorded considerable deference on appeal … .Contrary to the father’s contention, the record supports the Family Court’s determination that the testimony of the petitioner’s child sexual abuse expert sufficiently corroborated Alexis S.’s out-of-court disclosures so as to establish a prima facie case of sexual abuse against the father… . Matter of Alexis S 2014 NY Slip Op 01759, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

,

Mother Entitled to Hearing/Children May Be Eligible for Special Immigrant Status

The Second Department reversed Family Court and sent the mother’s custody petition back for a hearing.  The mother alleged father had abandoned the children and the children, due to their immigration status, could be returned to El Salvador where they could be victimized by family and gangs. Mother argued the children could apply for special immigrant status if she were awarded custody:

The Family Court erred in dismissing the petition in which the mother sought orders of custody for her two teenaged children. A natural parent has standing to seek legal custody of his or her child (see Domestic Relations Law § 70[a]; Family Ct Act § 511…). According to the petitioner, the children’s father has abandoned the children and, due to their immigration status, they could be returned to El Salvador where they have been subjected to abuse by family members and threats by gang members. The petitioner has alleged that awarding her custody would be in the best interests of the children, since it would enable the children to apply for special immigrant juvenile status… . Matter of Sanchez v Bonilla, 2014 NY Slip Op 01761, 2nd Dept 3-19-14 

 

,

Supreme Court Should Not Have Reformed Settlement Agreement/Criteria for “Mutual Mistake” Not Met

The Second Department determined Supreme Cout should not have found that mutual mistake required reformation of a settlement agreement.  The court explained the operative criteria:

“Marital settlement agreements are judicially favored and are not to be easily set aside” … . Although a mutual mistake by the parties may form the basis for reformation of a marital settlement agreement, “the mistake must be so material that . . . it goes to the foundation of the agreement'” … . “[T]o overcome the heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifested the true intention of the parties, evidence of a very high order is required” … . The party seeking reformation must show clearly and beyond doubt that there has been a mutual mistake, and must show “with equal clarity and certainty the exact and precise form and import that the instrument ought to be made to assume, in order that it may express and effectuate what was really intended by the parties'” … . Hackett v Hackett, 2014 NY Slip Op 01715, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

Family Court Improperly Conditioned Future Visitation Upon Enrollment in a Drug Testing Program and Improperly Delegated Its Authority to Control Father’s Visitation to Mother

The Second Department noted that Family Court could not condition father’s future visitation upon enrollment in a drug testing program.  Family Court could only make participating in the drug testing program a component of a current visitation order.  In addition Family Court improperly delegated its control of father’s visitation to mother:

…”[A] court may not order that a parent undergo counseling or treatment as a condition of future visitation or reapplication for visitation rights, but may only direct a party to submit to counseling or treatment as a component of visitation” … . Thus, the Family Court erred in conditioning the father’s visitation upon his enrollment in a random drug testing program at a medical facility, and should have instead directed the father to enroll in such a program as a component of visitation. Moreover, by authorizing the mother to suspend visitation upon the father’s failure to provide proof of his prescription, the Family Court improperly delegated its responsibility to determine whether and when visitation rights should be suspended … . Matter of Welch v Taylor, 2014 NY Slip Op 01619, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

Father Estopped from Moving to Vacate Order of Filiation Entered Upon Consent Despite “Somewhat Limited” Parent-Child Relationship

The Second Department determined father was estopped from challenging an order of filiation even though there was evidence the parent-child relationship was “somewhat limited:”

Here, the order of filiation was entered approximately 10 years prior to the instant petition, and the father had been paying child support during that time. In addition, the father sought, and was granted, visitation with the subject child, which he exercised, although sporadically. The father attended some of the child’s school functions and parent-teacher conferences, had telephone contact with the child, and saw the child on some of her birthdays. The child, who was 15 years old at the time the father’s petition was filed, was acquainted with some of the father’s family members, considered the father to be her father, and had never known any other father. Under these circumstances, the Family Court properly invoked the doctrine of equitable estoppel to preclude the father’s challenge to the order of filiation …, and “the evidence indicating that the parent-child relationship was somewhat limited did not preclude the application of [that] doctrine” … . Matter of Shawn H v Kimberly F, 2014 NY Slip Op 01610, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

,

New York Court Properly Declined to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Child Custody and Visitation Matters Due to Child’s Substantial Contacts with California

The Second Department determined Supreme Court had properly found that California, rather than New York, was the appropriate forum for determining child custody and visitation matters:

A court of this State which has jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Domestic Relations Law art 5-A) may decline to exercise jurisdiction if it finds that New York is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-f[1]…). The factors to be considered in making this determination include the length of time the subject child has resided outside the state, any agreement between the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction, the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, the ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence, and the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-f[2]…). “Particularly relevant to the jurisdictional determination is whether the forum in which the litigation is to proceed has optimum access to relevant evidence” … . “Maximum rather than minimum contacts with the State are required” … . Greenfield v Greenfield, 2014 NY Slip Op 01434, 2nd Dept 3-5-14

 

Excessive Absences Do Not Establish a Parent’s “Educational Neglect”

The First Department, over a dissent, reversed Family Court’s finding that mother neglected the child by failing to provide for the child’s educational needs.  The record demonstrated that the child was defiant, violent and difficult to control, and mother had made substantial efforts to provide for her education:

Although the child had an excessive amount of absences from school, such absences “do[] not, ipso facto, establish either the parental misconduct or the harm or potential harm to the child necessary to a finding of [educational] neglect under Family Ct Act 1012(f)(i)(A)” … . Here, the record shows that the mother faced obstacles in getting the child to attend school on a regular basis. The mother took the child to school for a period of time, but she was financially unable to escort the child to school on an ongoing basis … . Moreover, even when the child was present, she had a history of truancy, tardiness, leaving school early and loitering in the hallways. The record further demonstrates that the child was defiant, violent, and had a history of lying and threatening to harm herself when the mother did not allow her to do what she wanted. The child also suffered from mood disorder, and had continuous hallucinations that made sleep difficult. The child was eventually hospitalized, and was given a number of psychiatric diagnoses. As a result, she was prescribed medication that caused her to be drowsy and disoriented, which further exacerbated her unwillingness and inability to attend school.Under the circumstances, the mother was unable to control the child and, despite her best efforts, struggled to get the child to attend school regularly, as well as to her therapy and drug treatment appointments… .  Matter of Brianna R, 2014 NY Slip Op 01410, 1st Dept 5-4-14

 

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