You are here: / Social Services Law
, ,

Low-Income Families’ Challenges to Child Care Copayment Regulation Rejected

The Fourth Department rejected challenges to a copayment regulation by low-income families who are eligible for child care assistance but who are required to pay more than 10% of their gross incomes for the care.  The families alleged that the co-payment regulation, 18 NYCRR 415.3 (e), violated Social Services Law 410-x because it did not provide for a single sliding fee scale, the existing sliding fee scales are not based upon the family’s ability to pay, and the regulation failed to provide equitable access to child care as required by statute.  The families further alleged the copayment regulation violated the families’ right to travel within the state and their right to equal protection of the law.  With respect to the sliding scale aspect of the argument, the court wrote:

Plaintiffs …contend that the copayment regulation violates Social Services Law § 410-x (6) because it does not provide for a single sliding fee scale, as required by statute, and instead allows each of the 58 social services districts to set its own sliding fee scale. We reject that contention as well. “It is well settled that the Legislature may authorize an administrative agency to fill in the interstices in the legislative product by prescribing rules and regulations consistent with the enabling legislation’ ” … . “In so doing, an agency can adopt regulations that go beyond the text of that legislation, provided they are not inconsistent with the statutory language or its underlying purposes” … . An agency’s interpretation of a governing statute will not be disturbed unless it is unreasonable or irrational … .

Here, section 410-x (6) delegates regulatory authority to the Office of Children and Family Services, of which defendant is Commissioner, by providing that, “[p]ursuant to department regulations, child care assistance shall be provided on a sliding fee basis based on the family’s ability to pay.” The statute does not expressly require defendant to adopt a single state-wide sliding fee scale, and we do not consider it unreasonable or irrational for defendant to adopt a regulation that gives flexibility to social services districts to choose a multiplier between 10% and 35% to use in calculating an eligible family’s share of child care costs. Williams v Carrion, 2014 NY Slip Op 03044, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

,

Separate Dispositional Hearing to Determine Best Interests of the Child Appropriate in Mental Illness Parental-Rights Termination Proceeding

The Second Department explained when a separate dispositional hearing is appropriate in a proceeding to terminate parental rights based on mental illness:

Although, in the context of a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights based on mental illness, a separate dispositional hearing is not necessarily required in every case … the circumstances of a particular case may warrant a dispositional hearing such that a court’s determination to forgo such a hearing constitutes an improvident exercise of discretion … . Here, the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing indicated that the mother consistently continued her treatment, successfully completed parenting classes, and regularly visited the subject child. Furthermore, the record indicated that the subject child, who is now 13 years old, has long opposed adoption and has expressed a desire to maintain a close relationship with her mother. Under these circumstances, the court should have granted the mother’s motion for a dispositional hearing so that the parties could introduce evidence as to which of the dispositional alternatives would be in the best interests of the child… . Matter of Christina LN, 2014 NY Slip Op 00361, 2nd Dept 1-22-14

 

,

Family Court Erred in Allowing Court Appointed Special Advocates Access to Confidential Records and Proceedings

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Spain, determined Family Court had improperly allowed Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) to have access to confidential records and proceedings concerning children who were in foster care.  The court first noted that CASA was not a party and therefore did not have the right or capacity to seek relief from the court.  After finding that the petitioner (Social Services) did not have the power to direct the foster parents not to speak with CASA volunteers, the Third Department held that Family Court had erred in allowing CASA access to certain confidential records and proceedings:

With regard to Family Court’s unqualified directive that a CASA volunteer be permitted to attend all family service plan review meetings, and requiring petitioner to provide notice thereof, we find that the court exceeded its authority.  Service plan reviews, which are aimed at ultimately achieving permanent discharge of children in foster care, require petitioner “to review progress made through implementation of the previous service plan, identify issues of concern and suggest modifications that impact on and inform the development of a new service plan for the case” (18 NYCRR 430.12 [c] [2] [i]; see 18 NYCRR 428.9).  The reviews will often entail in-depth sharing, discussion and consideration of confidential information, such as medical and mental health information of the children or parents and reports of abuse and maltreatment… . * * *

Family Court lacked the authority to direct petitioner to “provide [the] CASA [volunteer] with the names of individuals and agencies providing mental health services to the children” subject only to the “providers, using their own professional judgment,” determining “what if any information regarding the children may be shared with [the] CASA [volunteer].”  Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13 (c) prohibits the release of mental health records contained in foster care records except in limited circumstances, including “pursuant to an order of a court of record requiring disclosure upon a finding by the court that the interests of justice significantly outweigh the need for confidentiality” (Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13 [c] [1]). The court here expressly declined to make such a finding, and petitioner is statutorily bound to keep such information confidential… .  Matter of Evan E…, 516055, 3rd Dept 12-26-13

 

,

Criteria for Termination of Parental Rights Based Upon Abandonment Explained

The Third Department determined Family Court properly terminated respondent’s parental rights after a finding of abandonment:

Despite respondent’s intermittent homelessness, difficulties in arranging transportation, and lack of finances and accessible phone service, at some points during the six-month period she had housing and employment.  Thus, Family Court found that it would not have been impossible or unfeasible for respondent to contact petitioner or her child at some time during that period … .  …

Unlike in a permanent neglect proceeding, in an abandonment proceeding petitioner is not required to prove that it exercised diligent efforts to reunite the family or assist the parent in maintaining contact (see Social Services Law § 384-b [5] [b]…; compare Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [f]).  The only statutorily authorized disposition after a finding of abandonment is an order committing the child’s custody to petitioner; a suspended judgment is not an option (see Social Services Law § 384-b [3] [g]; compare Family Ct Act § 631 [permitting suspended judgment as an option after a finding of permanent neglect]).  Thus, Family Court properly terminated respondent’s parental rights.  Matter of Erving BB …, 515880, 3rd Dept 11-21-13

 

, ,

Purchase of Life Estate Considered Transfer of Property Requiring Delay of Medicaid Eligibility

The Fourth Department upheld the determination that petitioner’s transfer of property within the 60-month look-back period for Medicaid mandated an approximately fourteen-month delay in Medicaid eligibility (petitioner was in a nursing home, seeking payment of the expenses by Medicaid).  The Fourth Department explained the relevant criteria with respect to petitioner’s purchase of a life estate in property previously purchased by her daughter and grandson:

“ ‘In determining the medical assistance eligibility of an institutionalized individual, any transfer of an asset by the individual . . . for less than fair market value made within or after the look-back period shall render the individual ineligible for nursing facility services’ for a certain penalty period (Social Services Law § 366 [5] [d] [3]).  The look-back period is the ‘[60]month period[ ] immediately preceding the date that an [applicant] is both institutionalized and has applied for medical assistance’ (§ 366 [5] [d] [1] [vi]).  Where an applicant has transferred assets for less than fair market value, the burden of proof is on the applicant to ‘rebut the presumption that the transfer of funds was motivated, in part if not in whole, by . . . anticipation of future need to qualify for medical assistance’ ” … .  With respect to the specific issue of the purchase of a life estate for less than fair market value, Social Services Law § 366 (5) (e) (3) (ii) provides that “the purchase of a life estate interest in another person’s home shall be treated as the disposal of an asset for less than fair market value unless the purchaser resided in such home for a period of at least one year after the date of purchase.” Matter of Albino v Shah…, 1152, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

, ,

Failure to Call Treating Physician Allowed Negative Inference in Case Alleging Mother Incapable of Caring for Child by Reason of Mental Illness

The First Department determined Family Court properly found mother incapable of caring for her child by reason of mental illness and noted the court properly drew a negative inference from the mother’s failure to call her own treating physician to rebut the allegations in the petition and a suspended judgment is not available:

The evidence, including testimony from a court-appointed psychologist who examined respondent mother, provided clear and convincing evidence that she is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care for the child (see Social Services Law § 384-b[4][c], [6][a]…). The psychologist testified that respondent mother suffers from, inter alia, bipolar disorder, which interferes with her ability to care for the child, placing the child at risk of becoming neglected if she is returned to her mother’s care. Moreover, respondent mother’s testimony confirms that she lacks insight into the nature and extent of her mental illness … .

Contrary to respondent mother’s contention, the Family Court properly exercised its discretion by drawing a negative inference against her for failing to call her treating physician or other medical providers to rebut the allegations raised in the petition and by the testimony after she expressed an intention to call her providers … .

The Family Court did not err in denying respondent mother’s application for a suspended judgment. This dispositional alternative is not available after a fact-finding determination of mental illness (see SSL § 384-b [3] [g], [4] [c]…). Matter of Love Joy F, 2013 NY Slip Op 06792, 1st Dept 10-17-13

 

,

Five-Year Look-Back Applied/Pension Properly Included in Determining Applicant’s Income In Spite of Unexplained Cessation of Payments

The Fourth Department confirmed the Department of Social Service’s determination that transfers of property within the five-year look-back period were properly taken into account in imposing a penalty period before the applicant, who was in a nursing home, was eligible to for Medicaid. The court agreed that a gift made during the look-back period was at least partially motivated by qualifying for Medicaid and the applicant’s pension payments, which stopped at some point for unknown reasons, were properly considered in determining the applicant’s income (noting that the department was not obligated to determine why the payments, which presumably were for life, stopped).  In explaining the relevant law, the court wrote:

“In determining the medical assistance eligibility of an institutionalized individual, any transfer of an asset by the individual . . . for less than fair market value made within or after the look-back period shall render the individual ineligible for nursing facility services” for a certain penalty period (Social Services Law § 366 [5] [d] [3]).  The look-back period is the “sixty month period[] immediately preceding the date that an [applicant] is both institutionalized and has applied for medical assistance” (§ 366 [5] [d] [1] [vi]).  Where an applicant has transferred assets for less than fair market value, the burden of proof is on the applicant to “rebut the presumption that the transfer of funds was motivated, in part if not in whole, by . . . anticipation of future need to qualify for medical assistance” (…see generally § 366; 18 NYCRR 360-4.4).  Matter of Donvito… v Shah…, 663, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

,

Termination of Parental Rights Affirmed Because Diligent Efforts to Reunite Parent and Child Were Made (In Spite of Misdiagnosis of Mother’s and Child’s Psychological Conditions)

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, affirmed Family Court’s termination of mother’s parental rights.  The dissent argued that the misdiagnosis of both the mother’s and child’s psychological conditions rendered the efforts to reunite the mother with the child inadequate.  The Fourth Department wrote:

Contrary to the contention of the mother, Family Court properly determined that petitioner made diligent efforts to reunite her with the child (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [f]).  Among other things, petitioner arranged for a psychological assessment of the mother, arranged for therapy sessions for the mother and various services for the child, and provided the mother with parenting, budgeting, and nutrition education training.  Petitioner also provided the mother with supervised and unsupervised visits with the child. Most significantly, petitioner arranged for a child psychologist to meet with the mother on several occasions in her home to provide parenting training, and we agree with the court’s assessment that this was “truly a diligent effort” by petitioner to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship.

Contrary to the further contention of the mother, the court properly determined that she failed to plan for the future of the child (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]).  “ ‘[T]o plan for the future of the child’ shall mean to take such steps as may be necessary to provide an adequate, stable home and parental care for the child” (§ 384-b [7] [c]).  “At a minimum, parents must ‘take steps to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the child from their home’ ” (Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d 838, 840).  Here, while the mother participated in the services offered by petitioner and had visitation with the child, the evidence established that she was unable to provide an adequate, stable home for the child and parental care for the child… .  Matter of Cayden LR, 575, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

,

Permanent Neglect Established—Mental Illness

In affirming Family Court’s finding that mother had permanently neglected her child and, because of her mental illness, would not be able to adequately care for the child in the future, the Second Department wrote:

…[T]he petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by, among other things, developing a service plan, facilitating regular visitation with the child, and making referrals for mental health evaluations and counseling …. Additionally, the petitioner established that, despite these efforts, the mother failed to plan for the children’s future…. The mother failed to complete a mental health program, and her continued lack of insight into the reasons why the child was removed from her care prevented her from correcting such problems and reflected her failure to plan for the child’s future. Accordingly, the Family Court properly determined that the mother permanently neglected the child.  Further, the Family Court properly found that there was clear and convincing evidence that the mother is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care for the child (see Social Services Law § 384-b[4][c]).  Matter of Kira J, 2013 NY Slip Op 05070, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

,

Criteria for Permanent Neglect Explained

The Second Department determined Family Court properly found father had permanently neglected the child and explained the criteria as follows:

“To establish permanent neglect, there must be clear and convincing proof that, for a period of one year following the child’s placement with an authorized agency, the parent failed to substantially and continuously maintain contact with the child or, alternatively, failed to plan for the future of the child, although physically and financially able to do so, notwithstanding the agency’s diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship”…. According to the statute, planning for the future of the child means taking such steps as may be reasonably necessary to provide an adequate, stable home and parental care for the child within a period of time that is reasonable under the financial circumstances available to the parent (see Social Services Law § 384-b[7][c]). The plan must be realistic and feasible, and good-faith effort shall not, of itself, be determinative …. At a minimum, planning for the future of the child requires the parent to take steps to correct the conditions that led to the child’s removal from the home… .  Matter of Egypt AAG, 2013 NY Slip Op 05065, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

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