Relates to requiring certain records checks in child custody proceedings; repealer

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Jabari Brisport says this is needed

Ensuring the safety of a child when awarding custody as a condition of an order of protection is as important as it is when awarding custody in a Family Court custody proceeding under Article 6 of the Family Court Act or as part of a matrimonial proceeding in Supreme Court under Domes- tic Relations Law ("DRL") § 240. Therefore, in all of these proceedings, courts should be subject to the same requirements to check the records of individuals who may be granted custody. To ensure that Supreme and Family Courts are fully informed prior to issuing custody and visitation orders, chapter 595 of the Laws of 2008 amended Family Court Act § 651 and DRL § 240(1)(a) to require courts to check the sex offender registry, the statewide registry of orders of protection, and the New York State Unified Court System's own records of child protective proceedings and warrants in all custody and visitation proceedings. As the legislation's supporting memorandum indicated, the law was prompted by a tragic case in which a Family Court Judge awarded unsupervised visitation to a parent who, unbeknownst to the Court or the attorney for the child, had been convicted of raping his 14-year old niece and was a Level 2 registered sex offender. The father was subse- quently arrested for raping the 12-year old daughter with whom he had been granted visitation by the court. In the message issued upon approval of chapter 595 of the Laws of 2008, the Governor declared: I fully support these new statutory amendments, which will ensure that judges will have vital information to assist them in making these immen- sely difficult and important decisions ... I have no doubt that the changes made by this bill will protect children from being harmed by persons who should not be given custody or unsupervised access to them. Recognizing the vital nature of the information provided to Family and Supreme Courts through a review of the domestic violence, sex offender and Family Court databases, the Legislature, in 2015, expanded the records review requirements to apply to the screening of non-respondent parents, relatives and other "suitable persons" as potential custodial resources for children in child abuse and neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act § 1017(2) L. 2015, C. 567. However, the statutory framework governing the Family Court still lacks a comparable records review requirement for another context in which the Court renders deci- sions regarding custody and visitation for which the information would be essential, that is, family offense proceedings under Article 8 of the Family Court. This bill would correct this omission by applying the records-check requirement to temporary and final orders of protection that include an award of custody. Requiring the court to perform records checks is particularly important at the temporary order of protection stage, since most petitioners seeking temporary orders of protection ex parte are unrepresented and lack full information to provide to the court. There are no costs associated with this bill because the courts already have an automated system in place for checking the records in other catego- ries of proceedings, i.e., custody and visitation cases under Family Court Act § 651 and child protective proceedings under Family Court Act § 1017. Further, the full incorporation by reference of Family Court Act § 651 ensures that in the rare cases in which the review is not feasible but in which an emergency custody order is critical, subdivisions five and six of section 651 would apply, thus permitting a temporary order of custody with a prompt review of records afterwards. Significantly, in cases in Family and Supreme Courts in which temporary and final orders of protection in conjunction with custody orders are issued pursuant to sections 655 and 656 of the Family Court Act or DRL sections 240(3) and 252, the records review requirements of Family Court Act § 651 and DRL section 240(1)(a) already apply, thus ensuring

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.