Court Slams Family Judge for Holding Baby in Foster Care to Force Confession
Philadelphia Family Court Judge Lyris F. Younge "did everything in her power" to rip a baby away from her parents with almost total disregard for their rights, an appeals court said.
May 07, 2018 at 12:10 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Legal Intelligencer
Philadelphia Family Court Judge Lyris F. Younge “did everything in her power” to rip an infant away from her parents with almost total disregard for their rights, an appeals court said, adding the judge was at best negligent or, at worst, intentionally trying to tear a family apart.
Notably, the court said Younge was out of line for keeping the baby girl in foster care — instead of allowing her to live with her grandmother while the case went on — as a way to make the parents “'cop to'” alleged abuse.
“If I leave her [in foster care] maybe I get closer to an answer as to what happened instead of moving her to grandmom,” Younge said at a December 2016 hearing.
In a stinging ruling issued by the state Superior Court on Friday, Superior Court Judge Anne E. Lazarus said, “The fact that a trial judge tells parents that unless one of them 'cops to an admission of what happened to the child' they are going to lose their child flies in the face of not only the [child protection laws] but of the entire body of case law with regard to best interests of the child and family reunification.”
The three-judge appellate panel reversed Younge's 2016 order putting the 5-month-old into foster care, where she remains as a toddler. The ruling was in response to an appeal filed by the parents of a child identified in court papers by the intials N.M.
This is the latest of several due process violations that Younge has committed and comes after a Legal Intelligencer investigation into her history of violating parents' rights.
In this case, N.M. was removed from her parents, a nurse practitioner and a graphic designer, when the Department of Human Services got involved after the baby's mother took her to the doctor for rib fractures. DHS blamed child abuse, but the parents argued it was from her older brother running into her.
Regardless of the cause, Lazarus wrote Younge was wrong to deny the parents' request that N.M. be cared for by her grandmother, denying the parents the chance to present crucial evidence, and in having her mind made up before all the facts were in.
“Despite record evidence that the trial court allegedly relied upon, the one factor, the elephant in the room, is that the trial judge was and remains the cause of the deteriorated bond between parents and N.M. in this matter,” Lazarus said.
Lazarus said that the record was replete with evidence that the parents cooperated with court-assigned goals so that they and their son, who Younge allowed to continue living with them, could be reunited with N.M. Despite that, Lazarus said Younge seemed to have a “fixed idea” about the case.
“We find that the record herein provides example after example of overreaching, failing to be fair and impartial, evidence of a fixed presumptive idea of what took place, and a failure to provide due process to the two parents involved,” Lazarus said. “Finally, the most egregious failure in this matter is the refusal to allow kinship care, despite the paternal grandmother being an available and approved source for same. The punishment effectuated by the trial judge was, at best, neglectful and, at worst, designed to affect the bond between parents and N.M. so that termination would be the natural outcome of the proceedings.”
Additionally, Lazarus said Younge should consider stepping away from further proceedings in the case.
“We strongly suggest … that the trial judge give serious consideration as to whether her apparent bias warrants that she recuse herself,” Lazarus said.
Claire Leotta and Brandi McLaughlin, lawyers for the parents, said in a joint statement that they were pleased with the Superior Court's ruling.
“We believe that our clients' rights have been vindicated and that the Superior Court saw this case for exactly what it was and recognized the 'judicially created parental alienation' that this family suffered throughout the life of this case. We are hopeful that moving forward this family will be reunified in accordance with the law,” they said.
Since the April 2 publication of The Legal's investigative story, Younge has retained West Chester-based legal ethics attorney Sam Stretton, who did not return calls seeking comment for this article. Stretton writes an ethics column for The Legal's sibling publication, the Pennsylvania Law Weekly.
The May 4 Superior Court ruling is the ninth of Younge's rulings to be overturned on appeal and the fifth involving a due process violation.
Lawyers and families have spoken to The Legal about their treatment by Younge, who they claimed ruled by intimidation and lacked an interest in hearing all of the facts.
The judge's alleged conduct recently sparked a protest. On April 24, roughly two dozen demonstrators gathered on a downtown corner to rally against Younge, most of them with cases in her courtroom involving a child or grandchild.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSullivan & Cromwell Dismissed as Defendant in Lawsuit from FTX Investors
Eleventh Circuit Rules for Moms for Liberty in Free Speech Case Against School Board
4 minute readEmployee's Alleged Action Lands Marriott in Court for Defamation, Negligence
Wave of Office Closures Highlights the Weighty Stakes Surrounding Law Firm Growth
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250