In re Charles A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Charles A.

234 A.D.2d 1003, 651 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13832

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 30, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 1003 (In re Charles A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Charles A., 234 A.D.2d 1003, 651 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court did not abuse its discretion in directing respondent’s placement with the Division for Youth in a nonsecure facility. The evidence at the dispositional hearing establishes that respondent has a history of truancy and assaultive behavior. Respondent was not accepted into the Probation Department’s Alternatives to Placement program because he failed to attend scheduled counselling sessions. All of the professionals who evaluated respondent recommended placement in a structured and supervised setting where his behavioral and educational difficulties could be effectively addressed. We conclude, therefore, that the court properly adopted the least restrictive available alternative consistent with the needs and best interests of respondent and the need for protection of the community (see, Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]; Matter of Jose M., 210 AD2d 228, 229; Matter of Shawn V., 195 AD2d 796, 797; Matter of Andrew MM., 187 AD2d 813). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Bonadio, J.—Placement.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court did not abuse its discretion in directing respondent’s placement with the Division for Youth in a nonsecure facility. The evidence at the dispositional hearing establishes that respondent has a history of truancy and assaultive behavior. Respondent was not accepted into the Probation Department’s Alternatives to Placement program because he failed to attend scheduled counselling sessions. All of the professionals who evaluated respondent recommended placement in a structured and supervised setting where his behavioral and educational difficulties could be effectively addressed. We conclude, therefore, that the court properly adopted the least restrictive available alternative consistent with the needs and best interests of respondent and the need for protection of the community (see, Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]; Matter of Jose M., 210 AD2d 228, 229; Matter of Shawn V., 195 AD2d 796, 797; Matter of Andrew MM., 187 AD2d 813). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Bonadio, J.—Placement.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 1003, 651 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-charles-a-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack