Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
SERVICES, PETITIONER–RESPONDENT; CAROL C., RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SCHAVON R. MORGAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, MACHIAS, FOR THOR C.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Cattaraugus County, for a new fact-finding hearing on the issue of respondent's alleged neglect of her son.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, adjudged that she neglected her son. We agree with the mother that Family Court violated her right to due process by refusing to permit her to testify during the fact-finding phase of the proceeding (see Matter of Patricia C., 63 AD3d 1710, 1711; Matter of Barbara R., 66 A.D.2d 800). “The right to be heard is fundamental to our system of justice ․ [and p]arents have an equally fundamental interest in the liberty, care and control of their children” (Matter of Jung [State Commn. on Jud. Conduct], 11 NY3d 365, 372–373). The court's order was based on, inter alia, a prior order in which it found that the mother neglected her son's three siblings based in part on her failure to take appropriate action with respect to those children when she was informed that one of them had been sexually abused by their father, and we affirmed that prior order (Matter of Annastasia C., 78 AD3d 1579, lv denied _ NY3d _ [Mar. 31, 2011] ). The mother's son, however, was not a subject of the proceeding resulting in that prior order, and the mother therefore should have been afforded an opportunity to be heard in response to the new evidence offered by petitioner in the instant proceeding (see Patricia C., 63 AD3d at 1711).
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: CAF 10–00916
Decided: April 29, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)