Nicholson v. Scoppetta - 3 N.Y.3d 357, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840 (2004)

Rule:

The first statutory element of "neglected child" under N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1012(f) requires proof of actual (or imminent danger of) physical, emotional or mental impairment to the child. This prerequisite to a finding of neglect ensures that the New York Family Court, in deciding whether to authorize state intervention, will focus on serious harm or potential harm to the child, not just on what might be deemed undesirable parental behavior. "Imminent danger" reflects the legislature's judgment that a finding of neglect may be appropriate even when a child has not actually been harmed; imminent danger of impairment to a child is an independent and separate ground on which a neglect finding may be based. Imminent danger, however, must be near or impending, not merely possible. In each case, additionally, there must be a link or causal connection between the basis for the neglect petition and the circumstances that allegedly produce the child's impairment or imminent danger of impairment.

Facts:

Plaintffs Sharwline Nicholson, on behalf of herself and her two children, brought an action pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 against the New York City Administration for Children's Services. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant, as a matter of policy, removed children from mothers who were victims of domestic violence because, as victims, they engaged in domestic violence and that defendants removed and detained children without probable cause and without due process of law. That policy, and its implementation--according to plaintiff mothers--constituted an unlawful interference with their liberty interest in the care and custody of their children in violation of the United States Constitution. The district court concluded that the City practices and policies violated both the substantive due process rights of mothers and children not to be separated by the government unless the parent is unfit to care for the child, and their procedural due process rights. On appeal, the court of appeals held that the district court had not abused its discretion.

Issue:

Did the N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act art. 10 permitted removal of children from the home based solely on findings that their mother was a domestic abuse victim?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

In answering the federal appeals court's questions, the court first focused on the definition of neglected child at N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1012. The court held that it clearly required a showing that the child's physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired or in danger of impairment as a consequence of a lack of care by the parent or caretaker. Furthermore, the continuum of removal procedures set forth at N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act art. 10, pt. 2 required in every situation, except for emergency removal without court order in circumstances involving very grave danger, an advance determination, by a family court, that actual impairment or risk thereof required removal of the child from the home and that removal was in the child's best interests. Where the statute was properly applied, there could be no removal grounded in a baseless presumption that a mother who had been a victim in the past, and whose children might have been present at that time, had thereby automatically failed to take proper care of her children. The court responded that far more was required to find neglect and justify removal than a mere showing that the parent had been a victim of domestic violence and that the children had been exposed to the violence.