Matter of Haide L.G.M. v. Santo D.S.M.
130 A.D.3d 734
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2015Background
- Petitioner (the child) is a 17-year-old unmarried native of Honduras who was placed in the custody of a parent after a Nassau County Family Court custody proceeding initiated by her mother in Feb. 2014.
- The child moved for Family Court findings to enable her to apply for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J).
- Family Court found the child met the age/unmarried and custody/placement elements and that return to Honduras would not be in her best interests, but denied the requested finding that reunification with one or both parents was not viable due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment.
- On appeal, the Second Department reviewed the statutory SIJS elements and the Family Court record de novo as to the reunification issue.
- The appellate court reversed, granted the child’s motion, declared the child dependent on the Family Court, and found reunification with her father not viable due to abandonment and that return to Honduras would be contrary to her best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether child satisfies SIJS age/unmarried and placement custody elements | Child: she is under 21, unmarried, and was legally placed under state-appointed custody | Respondent: did not dispute these elements | Held: Court affirmed these elements were met |
| Whether reunification with one or both parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or similar State-law basis | Child: reunification with her father is not viable due to abandonment | Respondent: Family Court initially concluded reunification findings were not established | Held: Appellate court found reunification with father not viable due to abandonment and reversed Family Court |
| Whether return to Honduras would be contrary to child’s best interests | Child: record supports that return would be harmful | Respondent: disputed by implication but Family Court had found best-interest bar | Held: Appellate court agreed it would not be in child’s best interests to return |
| Appellate authority to make SIJS reunification finding | Child: appellate court may make factual findings on appeal | Respondent: implicit objection to appellate factfinding | Held: Appellate court exercised authority and made factual finding of abandonment |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Marcelina M.-G. v. Israel S., 112 A.D.3d 100 (App. Div. 2d Dep't) (statutory standard requires finding reunification not viable due to parental abuse/neglect/abandonment)
- Matter of Mohamed B., 83 A.D.3d 829 (App. Div. 2d Dep't) (SIJS elements include best-interests determination re: return to country)
- Matter of Trudy-Ann W. v. Joan W., 73 A.D.3d 793 (App. Div. 2d Dep't) (application of SIJS statutory criteria)
- Matter of Maria P.E.A. v. Sergio A.G.G., 111 A.D.3d 619 (App. Div. 2d Dep't) (placement/custody element satisfied where child is legally committed or placed under state-appointed custody)
- Matter of Diaz v. Munoz, 118 A.D.3d 989 (App. Div. 2d Dep't) (affirming finding of nonviable reunification due to abandonment)
- Matter of Gabriel H.M. v. Juan B.F., 116 A.D.3d 855 (App. Div. 2d Dep't) (reunification nonviability due to parental conduct)