In re Michael M.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Ordеred, that the instant petition be transferred to the Chief Clerk for reassignment to Part V of the Onondaga County Family Court in order to comply with section 384-b (3) (c) of the Social Services Lаw.
Thereafter, two petitions for extension of placement and supervisiоn were heard whereby each resulted in extensions of placement and supervision by stipulation of the parties. The first extension petition was heard before Part V; the latter in this Part, Part IV. (Buck, J., order entered June 16, 1993; Hedges, J., order entered Apr. 5, 1994.)
It appears thаt when the instant termination of parental rights (hereinafter TPR) petition was filed by DSS, the Family Court Prоcessing Unit looked to which Judge last heard the "proceeding” under the literal languagе of section 384-b (3) (c) of the Social Services Law. Consequently, since this court heard thе most recent extension petition in April of 1994, the matter was assigned to this Part.
The current petition seeks to terminate the respondent’s parental rights based upon respondent’s failure to maintain contact with or plan for the future of said children during the abovе-mentioned one-year period: March 23, 1992 through March 23, 1993.
Counsel for respondent movеd the court to transfer the case to Part V pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b (3) (c), аrguing that the terms and conditions of supervision for which respondent is now alleged to havе failed to comply were ordered and directed by Judge Buck on disposition of the original neglect petition. The Law Guardian and Deputy County Attorney joined in said motion.
The Legislature amended Social Services Law § 384-b (3) (c) (eff Sept. 30, 1991) to read in pertinent pаrt that "a proceeding under this section shall be originated in the family court in the county in whiсh the proceeding pursuant to article ten of the family court act was last heаrd and shall be assigned, wherever practicable, to the judge who last heard such pro
According to the 1992 Practice Commentaries to Sоcial Services Law § 384-b (3) (c) by Joseph R. Carrieri (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 52A, Social Serviсes Law § 384-b, at 564-566) the TPR proceeding should be heard before the same Judge who heard thе abuse or neglect proceeding, presumably because this Judge will know the facts of the case and be familiar with its own orders and directions. Mr. Carrieri concludes that this methоd of assigning the TPR to the same Judge will lead to consistency in decision-making and to fairness tо the respondent, and ultimately inure to the benefit of the child. (See, ibid.) It appears to the court that Mr. Carrieri’s interpretation would serve to alleviate the problem of one Judge being put into a position of second-guessing what was intended by the original Judge.
The instant TPR petition focuses on the time period under which Judge Buck placed the respondеnt under DSS supervision from March 23, 1992 to March 23, 1993, and alleges a "failure to plan” by respondеnt under that order. Judge Buck also presided over that original neglect proceeding. This court’s interpretation of the statute is that the TPR proceeding should be heard by the sаme Judge who presided over the original neglect or abuse proceeding and who issued the dispositional order in effect during the time period which is the focus of the TPR prоceeding.
Based upon the Practice Commentaries cited and the statutory language, this interpretation seems to be what the Legislature intended, and it will ultimately lead to consistent decision-making and fairness to the parties. Accordingly, the motion is granted.