IN RE: Xaria J. (Anonymous).  Administration for Children's Services (2026)

Argued—April 27, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

O/

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Monica D. Schulman, J.), dated December 10, 2024, and (2) an order of the same court also dated December 10, 2024.  The first order dated December 10, after a hearing, found that the mother had failed substantially to observe the terms and conditions of an order of adjournment in contemplation of dismissal dated August 15, 2024, and granted the petitioner's motion, inter alia, to restore the matter to the calendar for a fact-finding hearing on the underlying neglect petitions.  The second order dated December 10, 2024, granted the same relief to the petitioner.

ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In February 2024, the petitioner, the Administration for Children's Services, commenced proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging that the mother suffered from a mental illness that impaired her ability to care for the subject children and, therefore, neglected them.  The proceedings were adjourned in contemplation of dismissal pursuant to an order dated August 15, 2024 (hereinafter the ACD order), setting forth the terms and conditions by which the mother was to abide, which included engaging in individual counseling until deemed no longer required with a licensed provider and to comply with any resulting recommendations.  On October 8, 2024, the petitioner moved, inter alia, to restore the matter to the calendar for a fact-finding hearing on the underlying neglect petitions on the ground that the mother had “failed substantially to observe the terms and conditions of the order” (Family Ct Act § 1039[e] ).  Following a hearing, in an order dated December 10, 2024, the Family Court found that the mother failed substantially to observe the terms and conditions of the ACD order and granted the petitioner's motion to restore the matter to the calendar for a fact-finding hearing on the underlying neglect petitions.  In a second order also dated December 10, 2024, the court granted the same relief to the petitioner.

The Family Court properly found that the mother failed substantially to observe the terms and conditions of the ACD order (see Matter of Nicholas G. [Candace G.], 185 AD3d 685, 688–689;  Matter of Brian P. [Madeline C.], 155 AD3d 871, 872;  Matter of Tristen O. [Shanee S.], 125 AD3d 525, 526;  Matter of Brent B., 279 A.D.2d 817, 818).  The evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that the mother was engaged in counseling with a provider who was not yet licensed and, moreover, that such counseling had not meaningfully addressed the serious mental health concerns underlying the neglect petitions.  Accordingly, the court properly restored the matter to the calendar for a fact-finding hearing on the underlying neglect petitions (see Matter of Nicholas G. [Candace G.], 185 AD3d at 689;  Matter of Brian P. [Madeline C.], 155 AD3d at 872).

Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's determination did not violate the mother's right to due process.  “The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner’ ” (Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552).  Determining how much process is due involves balancing “ ‘the private interests affected by the proceeding;  the risk of error created by the State's chosen procedure;  and the countervailing governmental interest supporting use of the challenged procedure’ ” (Matter of Tammie Z., 66 N.Y.2d 1, 4, quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 754;  see also Matter of Edwin L., 88 N.Y.2d 593, 600–602).  Here, the court fully afforded the mother due process by conducting a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1039(e) in which the mother had a full and fair opportunity to be heard.

CONNOLLY, J.P., CHAMBERS, VENTURA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court