New York Court Case: In the Matter of Shaida W.

TOPIC: FOSTER; INTERSTATE COMPACT ON PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN

In the Matter of Shaida W. and Others, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Frances W., Respondent; Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, Respondent; Lenore Gittis, as Law Guardian, Appellant. 

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK 

85 N.Y.2d 453; 649 N.E.2d 1179; 626 N.Y.S.2d 35; 
March 29, 1995, Argued 

April 27, 1995, Decided 

Appeal, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered July 28, 1994, which affirmed an order of disposition of the Family Court, Bronx County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), dismissing the petitions for extensions of foster care. 
Matter of Shaida W., 206 AD2d 333, reversed. 

Order reversed, without costs, petitions reinstated and matter remitted to Family Court, Bronx County, for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion herein. 

COUNSEL:

Marcia Egger, New York City, Carol Sherman and Patricia Nevergold for appellant. The dismissal of the extension of foster care placement petitions, without a hearing, based on the fact that the children were now living with their grandmother in California pursuant to an agreement under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC), violated Family Court Act § 1055 and the ICPC, as codified in Social Services Law § 374-a. ( Matter of John M., 78 AD2d 1006; Matter of Belinda B., 114 AD2d 70; Matter of Christine F., 147 AD2d 980; Matter of Antonelli, 155 AD2d 598; Sinhogar v Parry, 74 AD2d 204, 53 NY2d 424; McComb v Wambaugh, 934 F2d 474.) 

Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Jane S. Earle and Leonard Koerner of counsel), for Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, respondent. Reversal is mandated here because (1) the Family Court's unilateral severance of New York's jurisdiction over these out-of-State kinship foster care children was in violation of the Compact, (2) in view of the natural mother's stated inability to resume her parental role, the Family Court's refusal to hold a hearing prior to discharging these children from foster care improperly disregarded their best interests, and (3) the Court below improperly found that the Compact does not even apply to an out-of-State foster care placement with a relative. ( McComb v Wambaugh, 934 F2d 474; Matter of Shakiba P., 181 AD2d 138, 80 NY2d 925; Matter of Walker, 87 AD2d 435, revd on other grounds sub nom. Matter of Kim W., 58 NY2d 811; Matter of John M., 78 AD2d 1006.) 

Farber, Segall & Pappalardo, White Plains (John A. Pappalardo of counsel), for Frances W., respondent. The dismissal of the extension of foster care placement petitions without a hearing based on the fact that the children are now living with their grandmother in California pursuant to an agreement under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) violated Family Court Act § 1055 and the ICPC, as codified in Social Services Law § 374-a.