AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

In the Matter of SHINICE H. and Others, Children Alleged to be Neglected. TERRY M. et al., Respondents; LAW GUARDIAN, Appellant.

The Family Court erroneously determined that it did not have jurisdiction to modify its prior order since such modification would circumvent the fair hearing decision of the New York State Department of Social Services (the DSS). For good cause shown, however, the Family Court may set aside, modify, or vacate any order issued in the course of a child protective proceeding (Family Ct Act § 1061). It is the Family Court and not the DSS which acts as parens patriae to do what is in the best interests of the children (Finlay v. Finlay, 240 N.Y. 429, 433-434; Matter of Samantha S., 80 Misc.2d 217, 220). Section 1061 "expresses the strong Legislative policy in favor of continuing Family Court jurisdiction over the child and family so that the court can do what is necessary in the furtherance of the child's welfare" (Besharov, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Laws of N.Y., Book 29A, Family Ct Act § 1061, at 461). The two cases relied on by the Family Court, People ex rel. Ninesling v Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. ( 46 N.Y.2d 382) and Matter of Leonora M. ( 104 A.D.2d 755), involved aggrieved foster parents whose claims had been resolved unfavorably to them in a fair hearing and did not involve a proceeding on behalf of the child.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Kupferman, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF SHINICE
(Jun 22, 1993)