Relates to the placement of children in the care of a non-respondent parent during the pendency of a child protective proceeding

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Jabari Brisport says this is needed

Recent caselaw has held that where a child who is the subject of a neglect or abuse petition under Article 10 of the Family Court Act remains in the home of the non-respondent parent during the pendency of the proceeding , there is no "removal" of the child from home and thus no "release" of the child. It is therefore improper to require the non- respondent custodial parent to "submit to jurisdiction of the court" and to direct the child protective agency to provide "supervision" of the parent and the home. See Matter of Sapphire W., 237 AD3d 41 (2d Dept 2025); Matter of R.A.,AD3d, 239 NYS3d 139 (1st Dept 2025); Matter of Danna T., 82 Misc 3d 723 (Fam Ct, Kings County, 2024). As the appellate courts noted, such supervision can be intrusive for both the parent and the child, involving numerous unannounced visits to the child's home, inspection of the refrigerators and contents of the home, examination of the child's body, and interrogations of family members. Since many of these non-respondent parents are domestic violence survivors, the super- vision can be a traumatic form of re-abuse. The Appellate Division in Matter of R.A. noted that the mother characterized the searches as "'traumatizing,' `intrusive and humiliating,'" and said "they reminded her 'of the fear and anxiety of being abused' by the father, and 'brought (her) back to a dark place where (she) was forced to think about the abuse' by the father." 239 NYS3d at 142. This proposal makes clear that retention of custody by a non-respondent parent is not a removal or release of the child pursuant to 1017 of the Family Court Act, and such a parent who has not been charged with any wrongdoing may not be subjected to child protective agency supervision. That said, a measure of cooperation by the parent providing care to a child who is the subject of a child protective proceeding is essential during the pendency of the proceeding. This is true with respect to both a non-respondent parent who had already been caring for the child, as well as a non-respondent parent who has newly assumed responsibility to care for the child through a release under Family Court Act 1017. Both categories of non-respondent parents are similarly situated in that neither has been charged with any wrongdoing and should thus not be subject to agency supervision. Moreover, both categories of non-respon- dent parents have constitutionally protected rights to family integrity that are greater than those of third parties. See, e.g., Bennett v. Jeffries, 40 NY2d 543 (1976). However, the children in both types of cases are also similarly situated in that they have case-related needs that necessitate cooperation by the parent caring for them. The proposal thus creates a new Family Court Act § 1017-a to authorize the Family Court to require the cooperation of all such non-respondent parents "to the extent necessary to meet the needs of the child with respect to the proceeding, including, but not limited to, a direction to make the child available for court-ordered visitation with respondents, siblings and others, as well as appointments with the child's attorney, clinician or other individual or program providing services to the child during the pendency of the proceeding." These forms of cooperation are vital to ensure that the needs of the child in connection with the legal proceed- ing are met. A similar clarification of the meaning of "release" of the child and of the court's authority to require the cooperation of a non-respondent parent at the dispositional stage of the proceeding is added to Family Court Act § 1054, the dispositional provision applicable to persons providing care to a child during a time-limited period in which the respondent parent may be under child protective agency supervision pursuant to Family Court Act § 1057. The respondent in such a case may be in a drug treatment facility, for example, and the Family Court may be continuing its involvement with respect to a permanency plan

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.