Children's Law Ctr. ex rel. Kasey T. v. Shaquana M. (In re Albert T.)

202 A.D.3d 643

159 N.Y.S.3d 857 (Mem)

In the MATTER OF ALBERT T., Petitioner–Respondent,

The Children's Law Center on behalf of Kasey T., Nonparty–Appellant,

v.Shaquana M., Respondent–Respondent.

15378

Dkt. No. V-31909-19/21B

Case No. 2021–02524

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED February 24, 2022

The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Janet Neustaetter of counsel), for appellant.

Law Office of Lewis S. Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for Albert T., respondent.

Bruce A. Young, Brooklyn, for Shaquana M., respondent.

Webber, J.P., Kern, Moulton, Gonza´lez, Mendez, JJ.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Leticia M. Ramirez, J.), entered on or about July 7, 2021, which, upon a writ of habeas corpus ordering respondent mother to produce the subject child to petitioner father, ordered that the child be returned to petitioner, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the writ of habeas corpus vacated, and the matter remanded for a determination of the court's initial jurisdiction over the petition and its ongoing jurisdiction over this case and, in the event it is determined that there is jurisdiction, the best interests of the child.

The court failed to inquire into the child's best interests in granting the petition for habeas corpus to enforce a March 2021 order awarding the father sole legal custody and primary residential custody of the child (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982] ). Based on the grave concerns expressed by the mother's counsel and the attorney for the child about whether the father was a suitable guardian, the court appropriately ordered the Administration for Children's Services (ACS) to conduct an investigation. However, it erred in interpreting ACS's report on the investigation as containing no information concerning the child and determining that no further steps were needed to ascertain the child's best interests. The report indicated that there were ongoing child protection proceedings against the father in New Jersey and that those proceedings had resulted in the removal from his care of two of his other children, with whom the subject child had been living. It also indicated that the father had an extensive history of involvement in child protection proceedings dating back to 2003 and that he had been uncooperative with New Jersey child protection authorities and with ACS, which had been unable to interview him.

At a minimum, these...