family court

Subscribe to family court via RSS

The New York Statewide Central Register (SCR) of Abuse and Maltreatment maintains records of calls, allegations, and results of investigations regarding suspected child abuse and maltreatment. Although these records are not public, many employers and agencies are legally obligated to check the database before hiring applicants and accepting volunteers. Having an “indicated” report on file severely decreases the chances for an applicant to gain employment, as well as detrimentally affects one’s ability to secure housing and apply for government benefits.

Through a recent training conducted by Brooklyn Defender Services (BDS), Proskauer now has the opportunity to file motions to vacate findings of neglect in family court, where called for under the law.  In doing so, you can make a fundamental difference in the lives of poor families.

Last week, Proskauer obtained a critical victory for our client—a grandmother acting as guardian for her two learning-disabled grandchildren—in an appeal to the Appellate Division, First Department.  The appeal challenged a lower court holding that an amendment to New York’s Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program (“KinGAP”) did not apply retroactively to beneficiaries, such as our client’s grandchildren, who entered the program before the amendment took effect.

KinGAP, established in 2011, enables foster-care children for whom returning home or adoption are not available options, to achieve a permanent placement with a guardian relative.  To subsidize the costs of caregiving for guardians of limited means such as our client, KinGAP provides monthly assistance payments pursuant to a statutorily prescribed form of agreement between the guardian and a local department of social services.

When our client entered into a KinGAP agreement in 2014, New York Social Services Law § 458-b(7)(a) made the duration of the subsidy dependent on whether the agreement was entered into before or after the child’s 16th birthday.  Continued assistance payments were available beyond the age of 18 only if the agreement commenced after the child was already 16 years of age.  Section 458-b(7)(a) thus drew a distinction between foster parents and adoptive parents on the one hand and guardians on the other because foster and adoptive children were entitled to assistance payments until they turned 21 notwithstanding their age at the time their subsidy agreements were commenced.

On November 13 and 21, 2019, the New York State Assembly and Senate will hold joint hearings on the court simplification reforms proposed by Chief Judge Janet DiFiore. The proposed amendment to the State Constitution would streamline the court system by:

  • Consolidating New York’s 11 trial courts into three tiers: Supreme Court, Municipal Court, and Justice Courts. The Court of Claims, County Courts, Family Courts, and Surrogate Courts would be abolished and merged into a Supreme Court that would consist of six divisions: family, probate, criminal, state claims, commercial, and general. New York City’s Civil and Criminal Courts, Long Island’s District Courts, and the 61 City Courts outside of New York City would likewise be abolished and merged into a new Municipal Court.  The proposed amendment does not affect the Justice Courts.  Nor would this reform affect how judges are selected (whether appointed or elected).
  • Removing the constitutional cap on Supreme Court judgeships. The court system would be able to allocate judicial resources where needed, as opposed to where they are constitutionally (and arbitrarily) apportioned.  This would reduce backlogs, such as in family court, and also result in a more diverse pool of judges at the appellate level (which would continue to draw only from the pool of Supreme Court judges).

As a member of the professional services team, the non-legal side of the Firm, I have few reasons to ever enter a courthouse. Unlike my colleagues in our Litigation Department, my role at the Firm does not require me to observe hearings, converse with judges, or discuss the legal and administrative challenges that are pervasive in our court system. Yet, last week I found myself doing just that. Through a program called “Judge for a Day” organized by Legal Information for Families Today (LIFT), I had the unique opportunity to join the LIFT staff at the Kings County Family Court in downtown Brooklyn for a fully immersive court experience.

Yesterday, 23 law professors represented by Proskauer were granted permission to participate as amici curiae in a class action lawsuit contesting a recent U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy change affecting minors in New York who seek Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS).  This policy change has resulted in SIJS denials for immigrant children who would otherwise qualify for SIJS based on well-established state and federal law.

SIJS is a form of immigration relief that provides unmarried children under age 21 with a path to citizenship if they can provide a determination from a state juvenile court that they are dependent on the court or are committed by the court to the custody of a State entity or an individual; that reunification with one or both parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis under state law; and that it is not in their “best interest” to return to their country of origin.

The fast pace of technological change has left the poor and unrepresented behind in many parts of America. But in New York State family courts, Proskauer lawyers are part of an exciting new pilot project spearheaded by the non-profit Legal Information for Families Today (LIFT) which connects people representing themselves in family court with pro bono attorneys over a virtual platform.

LIFT screens the litigants, arranges the virtual meetings, trains the volunteer lawyers, and has experienced staff attorneys available to answer questions and handle any technical issues. The volunteer lawyers don’t need to leave their desks to provide legal advice and information to litigants who can connect from home or any quiet place with a laptop or smart phone. These videoconference sessions address child support, custody, and visitation, and are limited in scope and duration. The representation ends at the end of the virtual session.