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.
IN RE: RYAN R. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, appellant; Yvonne M.-B. (Anonymous), et al., respondents. (Proceeding No. 1). In the Matter of Sonya B. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, appellant; Yvonne M.-B. (Anonymous), et al., respondents. (Proceeding No. 2).
In related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Lim, J.), dated November 3, 2005, as paroled the children Ryan R. and Sonya B. to the paternal aunt and uncle, who reside in the State of New Jersey, pending final determination of the proceedings. By decision and order on motion of this court dated November 25, 2005, enforcement of so much of the order dated November 3, 2005, as paroled Ryan R. and Sonya B. was stayed pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the children Ryan R. and Sonya B. are remanded to the care and custody of the petitioner.
We agree with the Administration for Children's Services and the children's Law Guardian that, under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court erred in releasing the children Ryan R. and Sonya B. to live in the State of New Jersey without compliance with the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (hereinafter the ICPC). The stated purpose of the ICPC is to ensure that “[e]ach child requiring placement shall receive the maximum opportunity to be placed in a suitable environment and with persons or institutions having appropriate qualifications and facilities to provide a necessary and desirable degree and type of care” (Social Services Law § 374-a[1], art. I[a]; see Matter of Shaida W., 85 N.Y.2d 453, 458-459, 626 N.Y.S.2d 35, 649 N.E.2d 1179; Matter of Melinda D., 31 A.D.3d 24, 815 N.Y.S.2d 644, 2006 WL 1303251 [2d Dept., May 9, 2006] ). Here, by refusing to wait for the ICPC process to be properly completed, the Family Court failed to ensure that the children were being sent to “a suitable environment” and that such a placement was in the children's best interests (see Social Services Law § 374-a[1], art. I[a]; Matter of Shaida W., supra; Matter of Keanu Blue R., 292 A.D.2d 614, 615, 740 N.Y.S.2d 98).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 16, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)