 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SOCIAL SERVICES LAW YORK FAMILY COURT RESPONSIBILITY CHILD INTERSTATE COMPACT CARE CALIFORNIA AUTHORITY YORK CITY CASEWORKER APPELLATE FOSTER PETITIONS SAN DIEGO COMMISSIONER PLACEMENT RECEIVING STATE ART TERMINATION RECOMMENDATION CHILD WELFARE REPORT GRANDMOTHER DISCHARGE JURISDICTION GUARDIAN SUPERVISORY COOPERATION |
IN THE MATTER OF SHAIDA W., ET AL. FRANCES W., RESPONDENT, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SERVICES OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, LENORE GITTIS, ESQ., LAW
GUARDIAN &C., APPELLANT.
85 N.Y.2d 453, 649 N.E.2d 1179, 626 N.Y.S.2d 35 (1995).
April 27, 1995
1 No. 101 (1995 NY Int. 088)
Decided April 27, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Marcia Egger, for Appellant.
Jane S. Earle, for Respondent Commissioner.
Submitted by John A. Pappalardo, for Mancuso Respondents.
Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the
Placement of Children, amicus curiae.
BELLACOSA, J.:
This case implicates the scope of Family Court's authority to
terminate New York State's financial assistance, official custodial
and overall supervisory responsibilities with respect to five children
placed in the temporary foster care of their maternal grandmother.
They all moved to California in 1992.
The legal question presented narrows to whether Family Court's
dismissal of petitions from the New York City Social Services
Commissioner for extension of foster care placements, based solely on
the recommendation of a California caseworker in that receiving state,
violates the Interstate Compact of the Placement of Children (L 1960,
ch 708; codified as Social Services Law § 374-a).
We conclude that it does and that an authorized "discharge" of New
York's jurisdiction was not effected under Social Services Law
374-a, article V(a). We further conclude that Family Court's
consequent severance of New York's responsibility for these children
does not satisfy the safety net protections of article V(a) of the
Interstate Compact (Social Services Law § 374- a, art V(a)). Since
none of the "discharging" events specified by the statute occurred,
Family Court lacked a basis to terminate New York's jurisdiction and
jettison the responsibility for these children (see, Social Services
Law § 374-a, art V(a)).
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
