92 A.D.3d 1097
N.Y. App. Div.2012Background
- Respondent is Dakota F.'s mother; Dakota born in 2003; Dakota is in petitioner’s custody.
- In September 2009, permanency hearing report recommended changing the goal to placement for adoption.
- Family Court entered an order: concurrent plan of return to parent and placement for adoption.
- Petitioner appealed seeking reversal of the order.
- Court reverses, citing failure to consult with the child and the imposition of concurrent, contradictory permanency goals.
- Remands to Family Court for proceedings not inconsistent with the Court of Appeals' decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there required age-appropriate consultation with the child? | Dakota’s view was not consulted as required. | Personal production of a young child is not required; consultation may be indirect. | Remand for failure to consult; also need to address broader errors. |
| May a court impose concurrent and conflicting permanency goals? | Concurrent planning to pursue multiple goals is permissible. | Permanency goals are alternatives; only one may be chosen. | Imposition of concurrent, inherently contradictory goals is improper; remand for single goal. |
| Did the order properly reflect a single, lawful permanency goal or confuse modification with approval? | Court approved the petitioner’s proposed goal. | Court actually modified the goal beyond petitioner’s proposal. | Order was confusing and effectively modified the proposed goal; remand necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Rebecca KK., 55 AD3d 984 (2008) (court authority to approve or modify proposed permanency goal; issue of concurrent planning noted)
- Matter of Rebecca KK., 61 AD3d 1035 (2009) (age-appropriate consultation with child required at permanency hearing)
- Matter of Pedro M., 21 Misc 3d 645 (2008) (young child need not be personally produced, but consultation required)
- Matter of Sharu K., 20 Misc 3d 479 (2007) (concurrent planning discussed; limits on permanency goal structuring)
- Matter of Marylou L. v. Tenecha L., 182 Misc 2d 457 (1999) (single permanency goal principle; potential for future planning)
- Matter of Jacelyn TT., 80 AD3d 1119 (2011) (mootness considerations; concurrent goals discussed in context)
- Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 NY2d 707 (1980) (mootness and exceptional cases; review considerations)