Legislation to Allow Family Contact After Termination of Parental Rights Expected to Move
Sponsors of a bill that would allow family court judges to grant contact between children and their parents after termination are pushing their colleagues to support the legislation before they're scheduled to leave Albany for the year in June.
May 10, 2019 at 03:28 PM
6 minute read
State law in New York prevents family court judges from allowing any kind of contact between a parent and their child after parental rights have been terminated, but lawmakers are renewing a push to change that in the final weeks of this year's legislative session.
Sponsors of a bill that would allow family court judges to grant contact between children and their parents after termination are pushing their colleagues to support the legislation before they're scheduled to leave Albany for the year in June.
They rallied with attorneys this week in Albany, where the bill is currently under consideration by state lawmakers. It's scheduled to come up for a vote in the Senate Committee on Children and Families on Tuesday. The bill will likely be approved, after which it would be closer to a vote on the Senate floor.
Lawmakers in the Assembly have already moved the bill through committee, meaning it could come to the floor for a vote at anytime in the lower chamber. Assemblywoman Latoya Joyner, D-Bronx, said they're just waiting on a date for the vote.
She's sponsored the bill with State Sen. Diane Savino, D-Staten Island, for the past two years. Joyner's passion for the legislation came, in part, from her own personal story, she said.
Her sister was placed in foster care when she was 5 years old, after which she had “vivid and fond” memories of their biological parents, Joyner said. Joyner, meanwhile, was placed in foster care at birth. Her sister didn't have contact with their biological parents again until she found them later in her adult life, Joyner said.
“My sister spent her entire life searching for her biological parents and ultimately found us all,” Joyner said. “I can't tell you the emotional rollercoaster we all went through when we were reunited, but what I can tell you is that after we all found each other we developed a better sense of self.”
Savino also has personal experience in the matter. She started her career as a caseworker, during a time when the system was more flexible about contact between children and parents whose rights have been terminated, she said.
Federal law, which Savino likened to a “brick wall,” mandates that if a child is placed in foster care and remains there for a certain amount of time, the goal for caseworkers is no longer to reunify families, she said. Instead, it's to terminate an individual's parental rights, which would bar any sort of contact between that person and their child.
“Now we have children who are in foster care whose mothers and fathers are desperately working toward reunification, trying to meet the demands placed upon them by family court judges, trying to get their lives back together, and they run into a brick wall that was imposed upon them by Washington,” Savino said.
But the bill isn't solely a response to federal law, or the personal experiences of families in New York. It's also the legislative answer, its sponsors said, to a decision from the New York Court of Appeals in 2012 on the issue.
The case, called Matter of Hailey ZZ, involved a child whose father's parental rights had been terminated after being sent to prison. The trial court then denied a request from the father to have continued visitation with the child, saying that a section of the state's social services law did not allow the judge to grant the request. The Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.
“Absent legislative warrant, Family Court is not authorized to include any such condition in a dispositional order made pursuant to Social Services Law Section 384-b,” the court's decision said.
Now, Joyner and Savino are trying to provide that legislative warrant.
The bill would give discretion to family court judges as to whether allowing contact with parents whose rights have been terminated or siblings would be in a child's best interest.
There are no specific factors listed in the legislation that judges would have to consider when deciding whether contact is in the best interest of the child. Savino said they would look at things like the bond established before termination, and whether the parent may have some sort of issue that would make contact detrimental to the child.
“This would not apply in every case,” Savino said. “There are some situations where it's not in the best interest of the child to have a relationship with a parent. Sadly, that's a reality.”
The level of visitation allowed between the child and that person would also be up to the judge, according to the proposal. Judges could allow physical visitation between children and those individuals, but they could also limit the contact to telephone calls, social media and even letters.
The measure is supported by several defense attorney and family representation organizations, including the Bronx Defenders, Brooklyn Defender Services, Legal Aid Society, Lawyers for Children and more. Dawne Mitchell, attorney-in-charge of the Legal Aid Society juvenile rights practice, said the bill would be as beneficial to children as it would be to the parents seeking contact with them.
“Long-standing relationships with family members cannot simply be erased without detriment to the child,” Mitchell said. “Indeed, the ability to maintain family ties can provide children in the child welfare system with the sense of security they need to develop healthy attachments and thrive.”
Lauren Shapiro, director of Brooklyn Defenders Services' Family Defense Practice, was in Albany this week to push the bill. She said much of the same and urged lawmakers to take it up as soon as possible.
“This set of reforms will help countless families across New York state facing unfair and disproportionate harm as a result of their involvement with the child welfare system,” Shapiro said.
Family Court Justice Sarah Cooper from the Bronx, who is the current president of the New York State Family Court Judges Association, declined to comment on the legislation. She said the group hadn't considered it and would have to discuss the bill before taking a position.
Lawmakers have the next six weeks to bring the bill to the floor for a vote before they're scheduled to leave Albany for the year. The legislative session is scheduled to end June 19.
READ MORE:
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 AllHochul Vetoes 'Grieving Families' Bill, Faulting a Lack of Changes to Suit Her Concerns
Court System Names New Administrative Judges for New York City Courts in Leadership Shakeup
3 minute readRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
Trending Stories
- 1Orange Belongs to All: U-Haul Suit Argues Rival Public Storage Cannot Claim the Color
- 2Continuing Consolidation: The Biggest Legal Tech M&As of 2024
- 3FTC Announces HSR Final Rulemaking Impacting Premerger Filings
- 4NJ Cut Down on Open Judgeships in 2024, But Dozens of Vacancies Linger
- 5How to Add PR When You’ve Already Taken an ‘L’
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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