IN RE LACEE L., A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS, ETC., STEPHANIE L., res-ap, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, pet-res, DEKODIA L., res

4387. IN RE LACEE L., A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS, ETC., STEPHANIE L., res-ap, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, pet-res, DEKODIA L., res — DISABILITY AND CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC: ADVOCATING FOR ADULTS WITH INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, AMICUS CURIAE. The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (Saul Zipkin of counsel), and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York (Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux of counsel), for ap — Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Amanda Sue Nichols of counsel), for res — ANDREW J. BAER, NEW YORK, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD. AMY MULZER, BROOKLYN, FOR AMICUS CURIAE.—Order (denominated a decision), Family Court, Bronx County (Robert Hettleman, J.), entered on or about April 5, 2016, which, after a hearing, determined that petitioner agency made reasonable efforts to achieve the permanency goal of returning the subject child to respondent mother during the nine-month period following the child's removal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

4387. IN RE LACEE L., A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS, ETC., STEPHANIE L., res-ap, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES, pet-res, DEKODIA L., res — DISABILITY AND CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC: ADVOCATING FOR ADULTS WITH INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, AMICUS CURIAE. The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (Saul Zipkin of counsel), and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York (Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux of counsel), for ap — Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Amanda Sue Nichols of counsel), for res — ANDREW J. BAER, NEW YORK, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD. AMY MULZER, BROOKLYN, FOR AMICUS CURIAE.—Order (denominated a decision), Family Court, Bronx County (Robert Hettleman, J.), entered on or about April 5, 2016, which, after a hearing, determined that petitioner agency made reasonable efforts to achieve the permanency goal of returning the subject child to respondent mother during the nine-month period following the child’s removal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court’s decision is an appealable paper because it decided a motion made on notice and affected a substantial right — namely, the mother’s alleged right to relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (CPLR 5701[a][2][v]; Matter of Carlos G. [Bernadette M.], 96 AD3d 632, 632-633 [1st Dept 2012]). In addition, the mootness exception applies to the issues raised on this appeal (see City of New York v. Maul, 14 NY3d 499, 507 [2010]; cf. Matter of Breeyanna S., 52 AD3d 342 [1st Dept 2008] [appeal regarding child's placement was moot where, among other things, the ADA was not at issue], lv denied 11 NY3d 711 [2008]). As indicated by the Family Court here, the main issue raised at the permanency hearing was “to what degree the [foster care] agency was required to accommodate the parents’ cognitive disabilities when discharging its obligation to pursue the goal of return to parent.”

IN RE LACEE L., A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS, ETC., STEPHANIE L., res-ap, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, pet-res, DEKODIA L., res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal