IN RE: an Article X Proceeding Luis C. Jr. (2026)

Decision and Order of Motion #3:

On or about December 29, 2025, Petitioner, Administration for Children Services (hereinafter "Petitioner" or "ACS") filed an Article X petition against Respondent Mother, ALYSSIA A. and Respondent Father, CHRISTOPHER P. On or about January 13, 2026, ACS withdrew the initial petitions and filed a new Article X petition against Alyssia A. and Christopher P.

In the instant case, on or about February 18, 2026, Alyssia A. filed an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter "Motion 3") seeking to compel discovery against the Commissioner of Social Services ("ACS"). On March 12, 2026, counsel for Christopher P. filed an Affirmation in Support of the Order to Show Cause; on March 13, ACS filed an Affirmation in Opposition to the Order to Show Case and a Memorandum of Law; and on March 19, 2026, counsel for Alyssia A. filed a Reply Affirmation. On March 19, 2026, the Court heard oral arguments.

Many of the issues which were raised in the Order to Show Cause were resolved prior to the March 19, 2026, appearance. The remaining issue before the Court is whether ACS should be compelled to turn over to counsel the NYPD video interviews of Godswill U., Alyssia A., and Christopher P. with a qualified protective order which bars Alyssia A.'s assigned Family Court attorneys from sharing the videos with other attorneys who may be advising or assisting Alyssia A.

The Family Court Act § 1038 is clear:

"(b) Pursuant to a demand made under rule three thousand one hundred twenty of the civil practice law and rules, a petitioner or social services official shall provide to a respondent or the child's attorney any records, photographs or other evidence demanded relevant to the proceeding, for inspection and photocopying. The petitioner or social services official may delete the identity of the persons who filed reports pursuant to section four hundred fifteen of the social services law, unless such petitioner or official intends to offer such reports into evidence at a hearing held pursuant to this article. The petitioner or social services official may move for a protective order to withhold records, photographs or evidence which will not be offered into evidence and the disclosure of which is likely to endanger the life or health of the child .

(d) Unless otherwise proscribed by this article, the provisions and limitations of article thirty-one of the civil practice law and rules shall apply to proceedings under this article. In determining any motion for a protective order, the court shall consider the need of the party for the discovery to assist in the preparation of the case and any potential harm to the child from the discovery. The court shall set a schedule for discovery to avoid unnecessary delay." See Family Court Act § 1038

The Civil Procedure Laws and Rules state:

"(a) Prevention of abuse. The court may at any time on its own initiative, or on motion of any party or of any person from whom or about whom discovery is sought, make a protective order denying, limiting, conditioning or regulating the use of any disclosure device. Such order shall be designed to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the courts." See C.P.L.R. § 3103.

Family Court Act § 166, which governs disclosure of family court records does not directly apply in this case as the discovery being sought does not involve "records of any proceeding in the family court." The materials at issue are in the possession of ACS. Family Court does not have custody of the records, and they are not part of any court record.

"The records of any proceeding in the family court shall not be open to indiscriminate public inspection. However, the court in its discretion in any case may permit the inspection of any papers or records. Any duly authorized agency, association, society or institution to which a child is committed may cause an inspection of the record of investigation to be had and may in the discretion of the court obtain a copy of the whole or part of such record." See Family Court Act § 166.

We find that this case is distinguishable from People v. Salinas, 48 Misc 3d 791 (Sup. Ct Bx Co. 2015) in that Salinas centered on the question as to whether family court records could be turned over by counsel in Family Court to counsel for the same party in Criminal Court. In that case, the Court stated expressly:

"During the pretrial proceedings in this case, the People provided discovery to defendant pursuant to their obligations under CPL article 240. That discovery included the complainant's medical records, as well as ACS records in their own custody related to its investigation of the alleged sexual abuse. Although these records include some of the same documents produced during the article 10 proceeding, the actual records provided to defense counsel were obtained independently by the People pursuant to their discovery obligations in the criminal matter; they are not copies made from the Family Court's records. The People also provided discovery in the form of a joint interview report of the complainant. It should be noted that the People are entitled to obtain ACS records pursuant to Social Services Law § 422 (4) (A) (l). They routinely do so and provide these records to defense counsel as Rosario material. There is, however, no statute that allows the People to obtain Dr. Treacy's report or her recorded interviews of the complainant, and they do not have possession of those materials." See Salinas at 796.

In the instant case, it is undisputed that the videos in question are in the People's possession as they were provided to ACS by the District Attorney's office. The Court was not asked to sign a subpoena in this matter, and the material was provided to ACS outside the purview of Family Court.

This case is also distinguishable from Matter of G. (P.L.), 50 Misc 3d 1221(A), 36 N.Y.S.3d 47 (Bx Co Fam Ct 2015) in that in Matter of G. (P.L.), "The Protective Order as modified on June 25, 2014 directed counsel and parties to comply with statutes and regulations governing access to and disclosure of reports of suspected child abuse and maltreatment, child protective investigative records, hospital records and the Medical Examiner's autopsy report. These confidential documents and records were submitted by private and public agencies pursuant to court order and judicial subpoena for exclusive use in this Article 10 proceeding (see Family Court Act § 1038; 45 CFR 164.512 [e])." See Matter of G. (P.L.) at 5.

The records in Matter of G. (P.L.) are all protected by statute and were obtained through court order and judicial subpoena because they would not otherwise have been turned over. In the instant case, the NYPD videos are not confidential, are not protected by stature and were provided to ACS without any court order or subpoena.

In the Matter of Sean M., 151 AD3d 636 (1st Dept 2017), the First Department held that:

"Order (denominated a decision), Family Court, Bronx County (Alma M. Gomez, J.), entered on or about October 3, 2016, and order (denominated a decision), same court (Michael R. Milsap, J.), entered on or about July 22, 2016, which denied the respective motions of mothers Yanny M. and Justine D. for clarification as to whether each could share with her defense counsel in her respective, related criminal proceeding, Administration for Children's Services progress notes received in discovery in her respective neglect proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, to clarify that each may share the progress notes with her criminal defense counsel.

The courts' decisions affected the rights of the mothers to consult with fully informed criminal defense counsel and the mothers were aggrieved by the limitations the court placed on their ability to share information with their respective counsel.

The restrictions noted in Social Services Law § 422 (4) (A) did not bar them from providing to their criminal defense counsel ACS records lawfully obtained in their neglect proceedings. Any other result would violate their First and Sixth Amendment rights (see People v Knowles, 88 NY2d 763, 766 [1996])." See Sean M. at 636. See also Matter of Kaeyden H., 171 AD3d 627 (1st Dep't 2019) (extending the holding in Sean M. to Family court notes and transcripts).

Counsel for ACS argues that Sean M. does not apply because there is no current criminal proceeding pending against Alyssia A.

We agree that the instant case is distinguishable from Matter of Sean M. but find this distinction to be immaterial.

In the instant case, we are asked about the disclosure of NYPD video interviews which were conducted in connection with the death of a child. These videos were provided to the District Attorney's office so that they may decide whether to initiate a criminal case against Alyssia A. and Christopher P. These videos were then turned over to ACS without court order or a subpoena. The confidentiality of these records is not otherwise protected by law.

The Bronx Defenders are representing Alyssia A. in her Family Court case. As part of their multi-disciplinary practice, they have a criminal defense practice as well as several other practice areas. Ostensibly, there is communication and consultation between the members of those practice areas. For example, an attorney in the immigration until may well consult with an attorney in the criminal defense practice in order to provide the best advice and legal representation to their client in their immigration matter. Our case is no different.

It is correct that there is presently no criminal action pending against Alyssia A. or Christopher P.; however, given that this case involves the death of a child and given that ACS has pled this case as a severe abuse case, the potential Criminal Court ramifications are obvious. We cannot see how Alyssia A.'s family court legal team can possibly advise their client or advocate zealously for her without having full and meaningful consultation with their criminal defense counterparts as to any collateral consequences to the Family Court matter.

As stated above, the records in question are not "records of any proceeding in the family court." See Family Court Act § 166. In fact, we had no knowledge that these records existed until the Order to Show Cause was filed in this matter. The confidentiality of these videos is not otherwise protected by law. Moreover, even if they were part of the family court records, the Court would find that given "the need of the party for the discovery to assist in the preparation of the case and any potential harm to the child from the discovery," that they should be disclosed to attorneys who are working with Alyssia A. as to a possible criminal case even if there is currently no pending criminal case against Alyssia A.

As such, the remaining issues in Motion 3 are granted, and the Court ORDERS ACS to turn over any of the following discovery in its possession:

(a) NYPD video interviews of Godswill U., Alyssia A., and Christopher P.;

(b) NYPD video the home search;

(c) Any text message(s) or relevant communication from Godswill U.

Counsel for Alyssa A. is directed to submit the Qualified Protected Order attached as Exhibit J to Motion 3 to the Court for signature no later than March 25, 2026.

Decision and Order on Motion #6:

On or about March 30, 2026, counsel for Petitioner ACS filed an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter "Motion 6") seeking a Qualified Protective Order preventing re-disclosure and dissemination of the recorded forensic interview of the child, Luis C. Jr. at the Child Advocacy Center pursuant to CPLR § 3103. On or about April 9, 2026, counsel for Christopher P. filed an Affirmation in Opposition of the Order to Show Cause; on or about April 20, 2026, ACS filed an Affirmation in Opposition to the Order to Show Case and a Memorandum of Law. The Attorney for the Child did not file a written response. On March 19, 2026, the Court heard oral arguments.

The Court notes that a similar issue was raised in this matter and was previously addressed and decided by this jurist. The prior decision was with respect to a qualified protective order related to NYPD records; the motion currently before the Court relates to Child Advocacy Center records.

The Family Court Act § 1038 is clear:

"(b) Pursuant to a demand made under rule three thousand one hundred twenty of the civil practice law and rules, a petitioner or social services official shall provide to a respondent or the child's attorney any records, photographs or other evidence demanded relevant to the proceeding, for inspection and photocopying. The petitioner or social services official may delete the identity of the persons who filed reports pursuant to section four hundred fifteen of the social services law, unless such petitioner or official intends to offer such reports into evidence at a hearing held pursuant to this article. The petitioner or social services official may move for a protective order to withhold records, photographs or evidence which will not be offered into evidence and the disclosure of which is likely to endanger the life or health of the child .

(d) Unless otherwise proscribed by this article, the provisions and limitations of article thirty-one of the civil practice law and rules shall apply to proceedings under this article. In determining any motion for a protective order, the court shall consider the need of the party for the discovery to assist in the preparation of the case and any potential harm to the child from the discovery. The court shall set a schedule for discovery to avoid unnecessary delay." See Family Court Act § 1038

The Civil Procedure Laws and Rules § 3101 state:

"(a) Prevention of abuse. The court may at any time on its own initiative, or on motion of any party or of any person from whom or about whom discovery is sought, make a protective order denying, limiting, conditioning or regulating the use of any disclosure device. Such order shall be designed to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the courts." See C.P.L.R. § 3103.

Like the NYPD records previously at issue in this matter, Family Court Act § 166, which governs disclosure of family court records, does not directly apply to the forensic interview from the Child Advocacy Center being sought as the records do not involve "records of any proceeding in the family court." Family Court does not have custody of the records, and they are not part of any court record.

"The records of any proceeding in the family court shall not be open to indiscriminate public inspection. However, the court in its discretion in any case may permit the inspection of any papers or records. Any duly authorized agency, association, society or institution to which a child is committed may cause an inspection of the record of investigation to be had and may in the discretion of the court obtain a copy of the whole or part of such record." See Family Court Act § 166.

That being said, the Court does find that the Child Advocacy Center records are not the same as NYPD records, and a more narrowly tailored Qualified Protective Order is appropriate and necessary.

This case similar to Matter of G. (P.L.), 50 Misc 3d 1221(A), 36 N.Y.S.3d 47 (Bx Co Fam Ct 2015) in that in Matter of G. (P.L.), "The Protective Order as modified on June 25, 2014 directed counsel and parties to comply with statutes and regulations governing access to and disclosure of reports of suspected child abuse and maltreatment, child protective investigative records, hospital records and the Medical Examiner's autopsy report. These confidential documents and records were submitted by private and public agencies pursuant to court order and judicial subpoena for exclusive use in this Article 10 proceeding (see Family Court Act § 1038; 45 CFR 164.512 [e])." See Matter of G. (P.L.) at 5.

The records in Matter of G. (P.L.) are all protected by statute and were obtained through court order and judicial subpoena because they would not otherwise have been turned over.

Petitioner argues that the forensic interview should be treated similarly to a child's hospital records; the Court agrees. In Matter of Kayla S. (Eddie S.), the Court found "the privacy interest in these records belongs to the child, not to the respondent. The child did not consent to production or use of these records, and the Family Court Act's authority to use them in the article 10 case does not give the respondent, his attorney, or anyone else the right to use them in other proceedings. The Faily Court Act's provisions exist to protect children and provide respondents with a full and fair article 10 proceeding, not to serve as windfall to litigants who might stand to benefit in other arenas from the possession of confidential and intimate materials". See Matter of Kayla S. (Eddie S.), 46 Misc 3d 747, 752-753 (Fam Ct Bronx County, 2014).

The Court finds the Qualitative Protective Order proposed by ACS sufficiently safeguards the confidential documents at issue, namely the forensic interview conducted of the child Luis C. at the Child Advocacy Center, and does not infringe upon Alyssia A.'s or Christopher P.'s right to view and discuss discovery documents, nor does it bar free discussion between Alyssia P., Christopher P. and their respective counsels, as well "any other member of an attorney's law firm or law office that is performing work on the above-captioned Family Court case." While the propose Protective Order bars counsel and parties from disclosing and distributing the forensic interview, that limitation is necessary to protect the privacy and rights of the Child, and is done in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements. Unlike the NYPD records previously at issue in this matter, the confidentiality of these records is protected by law. Moreover, we must balance the rights of litigants in Family Court to make informed decisions with a full awareness of any potential collateral consequences with our obligation to avoid providing a "windfall to litigants who might stand to benefit in other arenas from the possession of confidential and intimate materials". See Matter of Kayla S. at 753.

As such, Motion 6 is granted. Counsel for Petitioner ACS is directed to submit the Qualified Protected Order attached as Exhibit A to Motion 6 to the Court for signature no later than April 28, 2026

This matter is adjourned May 14 at 10:00 AM for settlement conference, and July 1 at 2:00 PM for trial.

Dated: April 27, 2026

ENTER:

Hon. Pamela Scheininger, J.F.C.

Pamela Scheininger, J.