In re Harriet J. Jewish Child Care Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Harriet J. Jewish Child Care Ass'n

64 A.D.2d 653, 407 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12465

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

DecidedJuly 17, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 64 A.D.2d 653 (In re Harriet J. Jewish Child Care Ass'n) 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 Harriet J. Jewish Child Care Ass'n, 64 A.D.2d 653, 407 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to article 10 of the Family Court Act to extend the placement of Harriet J., a neglected child, the petitioner, the Jewish Child Care Association, appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated December 29, 1977, which, after a hearing, denied the petition. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and petition to extend placement granted. The record establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the denial of the petition was not in the best interests of the child and, hence, it [654]*654constituted an abuse of discretion. Termination of the child’s placement at this point may well compel her to return to her mother, an event to be avoided inasmuch as it would jeopardize the child’s continued psychological progress. Accordingly, the petition should have been granted. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to article 10 of the Family Court Act to extend the placement of Harriet J., a neglected child, the petitioner, the Jewish Child Care Association, appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated December 29, 1977, which, after a hearing, denied the petition. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and petition to extend placement granted. The record establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the denial of the petition was not in the best interests of the child and, hence, it [654]*654constituted an abuse of discretion. Termination of the child’s placement at this point may well compel her to return to her mother, an event to be avoided inasmuch as it would jeopardize the child’s continued psychological progress. Accordingly, the petition should have been granted. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.2d 653, 407 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-harriet-j-jewish-child-care-assn-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack