Making a Parental Designation: Options available if parents are unable to temporarily care for their children.

The article, “Parental Designation: A Way of Planning for the Expected and Unexpected,” suggests how making a “parental designation” under General Obligations Law 5-1551, can be an option for parents who need to make alternative living arrangements for their children without surrendering parental rights or involving Child Protective Services (CPS).

The option is not available to everyone. It requires having a person who is willing and able to take on the responsibility of being a “designee.” In addition, it will not prevent an investigation or court proceedings that might arise under the Social Services Law, the Family Court Act or the Penal Law.

The specific requirements for drafting a valid “designation” can be found in General Obligations Law 5-1552. In addition, a pre-printed form can be found here (forms are not a substitute for accurate legal advice).

Persons interested in exploring the “parental designation” option are encouraged to consult competent legal counsel of their own choosing.

Schuyler County “Bridging Community Connections” Event

Schuyler County officials, in conjunction with other state and local agencies, will be hosting a virtual panel discussion on “Bridging Community Connections,” and community resources available to youth and families living in Schuyler County.

The online event is Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 10:00 am. The keynote presentation will be by Jutta Dotterweich, and will focus on COVID-19’s impact on the emotional well-being of adolescents. The event will also be recorded for later viewing.

The registration deadline is February 19. The first 100 registrants will receive a “Bridging Communities” gift bag.

Interested community members can register for event by clicking here.

The event is sponsored by partnerships with the Schuyler County Youth Bureau, Cornell Cooperative Extension, Workforce New York, Council on Alcoholism and Addiction in the Finger Lakes, Glove House, Inc. and Catholic Charities of Chemung and Schuyler Counties.

New York’s Highest Court denies appeal in Schuyler sex abuse case.

The New York State Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, has rejected a Schuyler County man’s latest attempt to appeal a finding that he had sexually abused his four-year-old daughter and neglected his three minor children.

On Thursday (April 30, 2020) the Court denied the man’s motion for leave to appeal an October 2019 decision of the New York State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division.  That prior decision, “Matter of Lawson O.,” unanimously affirmed a Schuyler County Family Court order made  by Judge Dennis Morris in 2017.

The Schuyler County Department of Social Services (DSS) had charged the man in Family Court with abuse and neglect  of his children following receipt of a child protective services hotline report in January 2016. According to testimony before the Family Court, the man’s daughter had been discovered acting out sexually and then disclosed to a family member that her father had been having oral sexual contact with her.

Following a hearing in 2017, Morris determined that the girl’s out-of-court statements regarding the alleged sexual abuse were sufficiently corroborated and that the father had abused his daughter, derivatively abused her two siblings and neglected all three of his children. Therefore, he entered an order of protection, directing the father have no contact with the children, other than supervised visitation and communications reviewed and approved in advance by DSS, and directing him to enter sex offender treatment.

The father, through attorney Dana Salazar, appealed to the Appellate Division, alleging that the Family Court’s finding of abuse was not adequately established by the evidence.

Schuyler County Attorney
Steven Getman

The DSS was represented on appeal by Schuyler County Attorney Steven Getman. Getman asked the appellate court to uphold the Family Court findings. Getman argued that that the girl had demonstrated an “age-inappropriate knowledge of sexual activity” through her behaviors prior to the disclosure, supporting her description of abuse. He also cited evidence of prior sexual abuse allegations against the father involving other family members, and the father’s admissions that he spent approximately eight months in jail stemming from an earlier sexual abuse charge related to a niece. Getman also pointed out the father had admitted on the stand to lying to law enforcement officials, thereby showing a propensity for dishonesty.

The Appellate Division agreed with DSS, finding “a sound and substantial basis exist[ed] in the record to support Family Court’s finding that respondent abused the daughter.” Therefore, it upheld the Family Court order in all respects.

The father, again through Salazar, thereafter moved for leave to appeal to the New York State Court of Appeals.      The DSS, through Getman, opposed the motion, arguing that the Appellate Division’s decision was consistent with longstanding precedent.

In Thursday’s decision of the Court of Appeals rejected the father’s motion without comment, holding simply “Motion for leave to appeal denied.”

According to Getman, this decision effectively ends the father’s ability to challenge the Family Court’s abuse and neglect findings.

Neither the Court of Appeals nor the Appellate Division decision names the father or the children, using pseudonyms to protect the children’s privacy.

The Schuyler County DSS is the lead civil investigative agency for cases of alleged child abuse and neglect. The Schuyler County Attorney is the prosecuting attorney for all county agencies involving civil cases, including Family Court matters involving abuse and neglect.

Both agencies were assisted in the investigation of the case by members of the Schuyler County Sheriff’s department.

Schuyler County officials recognize April as “Child Abuse Prevention Month.”

Members of the office of Schuyler County Attorney Steven Getman assisted with the county’s “Pinwheels for Prevention” program to raise awareness of April 2019 as “Child Abuse Prevention Month.”

Under the campaign, officials promote preventing child abuse by distributing pinwheels and hosting educational events.

Schuyler County has set up a Pinwheels for Prevention garden outside the County Courthouse at 105 Ninth Street, Watkins Glen.

The county attorney’s office, which prosecutes civil cases of child abuse and neglect for the Department of Social Services, assisted DSS staff and Glove House employees in setting up the garden and distributing pinwheels.

Top photo: From left to right are: Secretary Maryann Friebis, County Attorney Steven Getman, Assistant County Attorney Vinton Stevens and Secretary Brandy Bower (absent: Deputy County Attorney Kristin Hazlitt).

Bottom photo: Steven Getman helps to set up the Pinwheels for Prevention campaign outside the courthouse.

For more on "Child Abuse Prevention Month," click here.

Family Court judge orders birth control in neglect case

A New York State Judge has ordered a woman not to get pregnant again until after she regains custody of her youngest child.

In Matter of Steven D. (Brandy F.), Monroe County Family Court Judge Patricia E. Gallaher made the order after finding the respondent was "a drug-addicted admitted prostitute, mother of 4 children, none of whom are in her care [and] having removed the fourth child from the mother who does not know who the father is." The judge also discussed the mother's "history of drug usage, her failure to get substance abuse and mental health treatment as previously ordered, by her failure to have suitable housing for herself and the newborn infant, and ...the failure to plan for the baby and have baby supplies."

Noting, "(s)ociety and its problems are changing, especially with the incredible rise in the use of heroin, and this court needs to adjust in response, instead of doing the same tired routine which does not solve the obvious problems in so many cases," Gallaher held:

To that end, this Court is directing DHS to include provisions in the final dispositional order that (1) requires DHS to comply with SSL § 131-e, (2)directs respondent to listen to the birth control counseling the county is required to provide pursuant to Social Services Law, section 131-e, (3) directs respondent to see her ob-gyn doctor for whatever confidential advice that doctor may give her regarding birth control, sexually transmitted diseases, and anything else, (4) directs respondent see her regular medical doctor regarding her health generally, including her addiction, and (5) directs respondent to take whatever steps she chooses (at no financial cost to her but at the expense of the Department if there is any expense) to prevent her from conceiving another child, fathered by anyone, until she gets baby Steven safely out of foster care and back in her care.

****

In the instant case, it is the intent of this Court to require, not that the mother refrain from ever getting pregnant in the future, but to put in place a way for this young woman to get the help she needs before she gets pregnant again, to put in place safeguards and knowledge for the mother to avoid pregnancy, and to enable some measure of compliance, so that if this mother does again become pregnant, any future unborn fetus may get the significant intervention necessary to ensure the positive health and development of the unborn child. There has been ample evidence admitted in this case to show the pattern and history of drug abuse by this mother, the pattern and history of giving birth to drug-addicted infants, and the pattern and history displayed by this mother who essentially leaves the young drug-addicted infants with others who can care for the babies, while never really engaging in services to help herself, despite the repeated and numerous offerings. An intervention in this cycle is needed here, and that is what this Court is doing.

In addition, Gallaher cited the constitutional issues raised by her decision and urged the Appellate Courts to review same.

The complete decision can be found here.

Schuyler County to offer "Medicare 101" class

State appellate court upholds permanent neglect by incarcerated father

Albany—An upstate appellate court has upheld a Tompkins County Family Court ruling that terminated the parental rights of a convicted felon and freed his children for adoption.

 

 In a decision released Thursday (November 29, 2012), the New York State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division held that the Tompkins County Department of Social Services (“DSS) had made “diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen [the father’s] relationship with his children,” and affirmed the decision of the local Family Court that held the father had permanently neglected his children.

According to the decision, the father is in state prison for “attempted assault in the first degree,” and will not be eligible for parole until October 2013.  In January 2010, the decision notes, the children (born in 2002 and 2003) were removed from their mother's home on neglect allegations and placed in DSS custody.

After the children were placed, the court held, the children’s caseworker provided the father with permanency reports and information about his rights and responsibilities, facilitated written correspondence between him and the children, and sent him photographs and sought his recommendations for a home for the children while he was in jail.  However, the father’s recommendations proved unsuitable, the court said.

“[W]hen his relatives were rejected, the only alternative he was able to propose was his homeless

girlfriend, who apparently had no relationship with the children,” the court wrote.

In addition, the court rejected the father’s argument that the DSS should have brought the children to his prison for visits, given their ages, emotional concerns, and the distance between the prison and their foster homes.

DSS “proved by clear and convincing evidence that it made affirmative, repeated and meaningful

efforts” on behalf of the father and the children, the court ruled.  Therefore, it upheld the Family Court’s ruling.

The real names of the father and the children were not released in the court order, to protect their privacy.

The father was represented in the appeal by Ithaca attorney Pamela B. Bleiwas.  The DSS was represented by Joseph Cassidy.  Ovid attorney Steven J. Getman was attorney for the children.

The complete court decision can be found here.

New law protects New York social workers

New York State has enacted legislation to enhance the penalties for assaulting employees of a county social services district while in performance of their duties.

On Friday (August 17, 2012), Governor Cuomo signed A.4672-S.7720 and it became Chap. 434 of the Laws of 2012.

The new law extends the penalties provided for assaults against other public employees (such as police offers and school employees) to cover the safety of government workers who deliver social services. This law makes assaulting an employee of any local social services district while performing duties directly related to his or her job, a Class D felony, punishable by up to seven years in prison

Supporters of the law hope that elevating the current penalty from a misdemeanor to a felony will help serve as a deterrent to those that would use physical force against those who work to protect children and seniors.

The law goes into effect on Nov. 1, 2012. For more on the new law, click here.

New York’s highest court issues new decisions

The New York State Court of Appeals has issued a number of new decisions this week on several important issues in civil and criminal law.

Among the cases, the state’s high court ruled on the following issues:

• whether the Family Court may direct continuing contact between a jailed parent and his child once parental rights have been terminated due to permanent neglect;
• whether the trial court’s error in denying a criminal defendant's requests for a severance based on the improper joinder of certain counts relating only to a co-defendant is harmless;
• whether the landlord of a New York City loft who has not complied with the Loft Law may maintain an ejectment action based on non-payment of rent;
• whether a college baseball pitcher assumed the risk of injury associated with his indoor practice;
• whether a historian is entitled under the Freedom of Information Law to unredacted transcripts of interviews that would identify informants who were promised confidentiality during investigations of school employees suspected of communist party ties.

The decisions are available to the public and can be found at the court’s website.