People v. Vanderhorst
Appellate Division affirms retention of adolescent offender case in Youth Part, finding extraordinary circumstances survived appeal waiver as jurisdictional issue and creating inter-departmental split.
Appellate Division affirms retention of adolescent offender case in Youth Part, finding extraordinary circumstances survived appeal waiver as jurisdictional issue and creating inter-departmental split.
The Sixth District upheld a graduated supervised visitation order for a father newly established as the biological parent, finding the order sufficiently specific and not violative of due process.
The Fourth Department affirms the termination of a father’s parental rights under Social Services Law section 384-b, addressing only his challenge to the denial of an adjournment request while dismissing remaining claims.
In a significant opinion interpreting Family Court Act article 8, the Fourth Department holds that an attorney for the child has authority to file a family offense petition on behalf of a child against a nonparent, broadening access to protective relief for children.
The Fourth Department affirms Family Court’s determination that the respondent father neglected his children and upholds the continuation of foster care placement.
The Eighth District affirmed permanent custody after the juvenile court denied a continuance for a mother who had missed four of five prior hearings, finding no due process violation.
In a 2-1 decision, the Eighth District reversed a permanent custody grant, finding the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying a continuance when CCDCFS filed an amended case plan just six days before the hearing.
The Eighth District affirmed permanent custody of four children where the mother persistently denied that her partner sexually abused her older daughter and failed to complete case-plan objectives.
The Third Department affirms Family Court’s termination of a father’s parental rights based on permanent neglect, finding the father failed to plan for the child’s future despite available services.
The First District affirms a juvenile abuse and neglect adjudication, holding that a CAPS consultation note was properly admitted under the business records exception and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying continuances.