Matter of Leenasia C. (Lamarriea C.--Maxie B.)
154 A.D.3d 1
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- ACS filed neglect petitions after police found drugs, cartridges, and vermin in respondent mother's apartment; children were initially placed in kinship foster care.
- Mother completed services (WIN treatment, random drug testing with consistent negatives), maintained regular visitation, and the children were returned to her care under a 12‑month ACS supervision dispositional order (Oct. 15, 2014).
- Mother moved post‑disposition under Family Court Act § 1061 to convert the dispositional release into a suspended judgment, vacate the prior consent neglect finding, and dismiss the petition, arguing compliance and employment barriers caused by the neglect finding.
- ACS opposed, arguing (1) § 1061’s good‑cause standard is not satisfied merely by compliance with another disposition, (2) a suspended judgment is prospective and cannot be applied retroactively, and (3) vacatur was not in the children’s best interest given the original allegations.
- Family Court granted a retroactive suspended judgment that expired on entry, vacated the neglect finding, and dismissed the petition; Supreme Court (Appellate Division) affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner's (ACS) Argument | Respondent Mother's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Family Court may grant a suspended judgment retroactively to vacate a neglect finding post‑disposition | Retroactive suspended judgment improperly rewards compliance with a different dispositional order, circumvents §1061 good‑cause, and susp. judgments are prospective | §1061 authorizes modification/vacatur of any prior order for good cause; mother’s full compliance and children’s welfare justify retroactive relief | Court held §1061 permits postdispositional, retroactive suspended judgments to vacate findings when supported by best‑interest showing |
| Whether mother met §1061 good‑cause standard to modify the dispositional order | Compliance with prior disposition alone is insufficient; serious underlying allegations counsel against vacatur | Compliance, lack of prior child‑protective history, improvement in home, and employment harm show good cause and best interest | Court found good cause: mother complied, children safe, no prior history; vacatur served children’s best interest |
| Whether vacatur of neglect finding was contrary to children’s best interest | Vacatur risks removing supervisory protection and understates seriousness of original allegations | Vacatur removes employment barriers, promotes family stability and better support for children; ACS raised no current safety concerns | Court balanced factors (history, seriousness, remorse, amenability) and concluded vacatur promoted children’s best interest |
| Whether granting retroactive relief would create harmful precedent/public‑policy problem | Would open floodgates and undermine suspended‑judgment purpose | Each case is fact‑specific; allowing relief in rare, appropriate cases furthers remedial purpose of the Act | Court rejected slippery‑slope, emphasizing case‑specific scrutiny and remedial statutory purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Diane P., 110 A.D.2d 354 (2d Dep’t) (remedial, not punitive, purpose of Family Court Act)
- Matter of Angel R., 285 A.D.2d 407 (1st Dep’t) (dismissing neglect when aid of court no longer required)
- Matter of Shinice H., 194 A.D.2d 444 (1st Dep’t) (§1061 supports continuing jurisdiction to modify orders)
- Matter of Chendo O., 193 A.D.2d 1083 (4th Dep’t) (§1061 applies to fact‑finding and dispositional orders)
- Matter of Jonathan B., 5 A.D.3d 477 (2d Dep’t) (court retains jurisdiction to determine compliance with suspended judgment)
- Matter of Crystal S., 74 A.D.3d 823 (2d Dep’t) (limitations on duration of suspended‑judgment terms)
- Matter of Baby Girl W., 245 A.D.2d 830 (3d Dep’t) (compliance with suspended judgment does not automatically mandate vacatur)
- Matter of Eric Z., 100 A.D.3d 646 (2d Dep’t) (purpose of suspended judgment is to allow correction of neglectful conduct)
- Matter of Kenneth QQ., 77 A.D.3d 1223 (3d Dep’t) (§1061 modification must be supported by sound and substantial record basis)