Relates to orders of protection in child abuse and neglect proceedings in family court

• Democratic1
• Republican1

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why the sponsor says this is needed

Section 1056(1) of the FCA authorizes an order of protection against respondent parents, persons legally responsible for a child's care and such persons' spouses in child neglect and abuse proceedings to last only as long as a child protective dispositional orders of supervision. Dispositions in child protective cases include, inter alia, release of a child under supervision for one year, subject to a maximum one-year extension. Thus, orders of protection against a non-parent, or person legally responsible for the child, may only last for one year, subject to a one- year extension even in the most extreme cases of severe phys- ical or sexual abuse. This leaves children vulnerable to continued harm in their own homes when the Family Court's supervision ends. The FCA and Domestic Relations Law authorize far longer orders with respect to identical allegations in other categories of cases, e.g., family offense and custody proceedings. This measure would remedy the problem. As is the case for orders of protection in family offense cases, the new subdivision (4-a) provides that orders of protection issued in child protective proceedings against individuals who are not the parents of the child, but who were members of the household at the time of the disposition, may last up to two years or, upon findings of special circumstances, up to five years, subject to an annual review. The definition of special circumstances includes physical injury or serious physical injury to the petitioner or acts constituting a sex offense caused by the respondent, the use of a dangerous instrument against the child by the respondent, a history of violations of prior orders of protection by the respondent, prior convictions for crimes against the child by the respondent or the exposure of any family or household member to physical injury by the respondent which constitute an immediate and ongoing danger to the child, or any member of the child's family or household. Such orders would be able to be extended upon annual judicial review, modification or vacatur, with notice to all affected parties. The total period of such order would be no more than two years, or if there was a finding of special circumstances, five years from the date of the initial order. This would give the child victim time to heal: emotionally, psychologically and physically. FCA Article 10 is designed to help and protect children from injury or mistreatment and to safeguard their physical, mental and emotional well- being. Since the Court is statutorily empowered to issue an order of protection until a child's 18th birthday in a custody/visitation matter, it defies logic that the Court would not have a similar power under a child abuse/neglect proceeding. This measure does not create a new class of orders of protection nor does it impose any penalty or punitive action upon the respondent who has been found to have committed the abuse or neglect after admission or trial. Nor does it prevent a parent from contact with their biological children. Provisions for time-limited orders subject to regular review would, therefore, be consistent with the requirement for time-limited orders with authorizations for periodic judicial review as established by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Sheena D., 8 N.Y.3d 136 (2007). This bill is critically important to effectuate the purpose of the child protective article of the Family Court Act, that is "to help protect children from injury or mistreatment and to help safeguard their phys- ical, mental and emotional well-being." (FCA § 1011)

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.