In re Jamie J.
30 N.Y.3d 275
Court for the Trial of Impeach...2017Background
- Newborn Jamie J. was removed from mother Michelle E.C.'s custody under a Family Court ex parte pre-petition order (FCA §1022); a neglect petition under article 10 was filed days later.
- Over a year later, on the eve of the fact-finding hearing, the Department moved to amend its petition; Family Court denied the late amendment as prejudicial.
- After a full hearing, Family Court found the Department failed to prove neglect and dismissed the article 10 petition; the Department did not appeal.
- Despite dismissal, the Department insisted on an article 10-A permanency hearing already calendared; Family Court held a second permanency hearing and continued Jamie J. in foster care.
- Michelle E.C. challenged jurisdiction, consenting to an order to expedite appeal; the Appellate Division affirmed, and the mother appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Family Court retains subject-matter jurisdiction under FCA article 10-A to hold permanency hearings after dismissal of the underlying article 10 neglect petition | Michelle: dismissal of the neglect petition terminates Family Court jurisdiction and requires child’s return | Department: FCA §1088 grants continuing jurisdiction once a child is placed (even pre-petition removal), so permanency hearings may continue despite dismissal | Court: Dismissal of the article 10 petition ends jurisdiction; article 10-A does not independently preserve jurisdiction after dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Michael B., 80 N.Y.2d 299 (1992) (articulates parents’ fundamental right to custody and preference for reunification)
- Matter of Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A.C.C., 28 N.Y.3d 1 (2016) (discusses statutory and constitutional parental rights)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (due-process standards for terminating parental rights)
- Matter of Tammie Z., 66 N.Y.2d 1 (1985) (holding that if abuse/neglect is not proved the petition must be dismissed and the child returned)
- Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357 (2004) (recognizes limits on state intervention and the importance of reasonable efforts)
- Matter of State of New York v. Michael M., 24 N.Y.3d 649 (2014) (addresses continuing jurisdiction and related permanency issues)
- Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978) (due process bars breakup of family absent a showing of parental unfitness)