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: ROBERT H. (Anonymous). Commissioner of Administration for Children's Services Of The City Of New York, Appellant, Rose J.H. (Anonymous), et al., Respondents.
In a child neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.), dated February 24, 2003, which, after a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028, granted an application for the return of the subject child to the custody of his father under the petitioner's supervision. By decision and order on motion dated March 14, 2003, this court stayed enforcement of the order pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the application for the return of the subject child is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
After the commencement of this child neglect proceeding regarding Robert H., a temporary order of protection was issued against the parents in favor of Robert, directing the parents, inter alia, to refrain from using corporal punishment. The Family Court subsequently temporarily removed Robert from the parents' custody after finding that there existed an imminent risk to his emotional and mental health. Thereafter, following an application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028, the Family Court returned Robert to the custody of his father under the petitioner's supervision.
The Family Court erred in granting the application and returning Robert to his father's custody at this juncture. There was sufficient evidence presented at the initial hearing that Robert's emotional, mental, and physical health would be at imminent risk if he was returned to live with his parents (see Family Ct Act § 1028[f] ).
In light of the foregoing and the parents' failure to live up to prior directives of the Family Court, the safer course is not to return Robert to his father's custody pending a full fact-finding hearing (see Matter of Marcos O., 270 A.D.2d 270, 703 N.Y.S.2d 532; Matter of Erika B., 268 A.D.2d 586, 702 N.Y.S.2d 110; Matter of C. Children, 249 A.D.2d 540, 672 N.Y.S.2d 134; Matter of Caroline C., 206 A.D.2d 529, 615 N.Y.S.2d 79; Matter of Darnell D., 139 A.D.2d 610, 527 N.Y.S.2d 103).
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: July 14, 2003
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)