In re Jamie L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jamie L.

110 A.D.2d 975, 488 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48867

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

DecidedApril 25, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 975 (In re Jamie L.) 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 Jamie L., 110 A.D.2d 975, 488 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Levine, J.

Respondent, now age 15, contends on this appeal that Family Court abused its discretion in placing him for 18 months in the custody of the St. Lawrence County Commissioner of Social Services (see, Family Ct Act § 756 [a] [i]) as part of its order adjudicating him a person in need of supervision (hereinafter [976]*976PINS). Respondent’s sole basis for this argument is that this was his first PINS adjudication. However, the record discloses that at the time Family Court placed respondent in the Commissioner’s custody, he was a chronic truant who had failed to improve his attendance record despite a directive to attend school by Family Court at his initial appearance on the petition. Further, respondent failed to modify this behavior following disciplinary measures taken by school authorities and by the Probation Department. The record also contains evidence that respondent’s parents were unable to provide him with adequate supervision and discipline and that two of his older siblings had criminal records. At the time respondent appeared before Family Court, a charge of juvenile delinquency had been filed against him arising out of his alleged possession of a stolen motorbike.

Accordingly, it was the opinion of respondent’s probation officer, as well as that of an examining psychologist, that temporary custody of respondent should be given to the Commissioner with a view to placing him in foster care. Given respondent’s conduct and background, it cannot be said that Family Court abused its discretion here (see, Matter of Lester NN., 76 AD2d 687, 688).

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

— Levine, J.

Respondent, now age 15, contends on this appeal that Family Court abused its discretion in placing him for 18 months in the custody of the St. Lawrence County Commissioner of Social Services (see, Family Ct Act § 756 [a] [i]) as part of its order adjudicating him a person in need of supervision (hereinafter [976]*976PINS). Respondent’s sole basis for this argument is that this was his first PINS adjudication. However, the record discloses that at the time Family Court placed respondent in the Commissioner’s custody, he was a chronic truant who had failed to improve his attendance record despite a directive to attend school by Family Court at his initial appearance on the petition. Further, respondent failed to modify this behavior following disciplinary measures taken by school authorities and by the Probation Department. The record also contains evidence that respondent’s parents were unable to provide him with adequate supervision and discipline and that two of his older siblings had criminal records. At the time respondent appeared before Family Court, a charge of juvenile delinquency had been filed against him arising out of his alleged possession of a stolen motorbike.

Accordingly, it was the opinion of respondent’s probation officer, as well as that of an examining psychologist, that temporary custody of respondent should be given to the Commissioner with a view to placing him in foster care. Given respondent’s conduct and background, it cannot be said that Family Court abused its discretion here (see, Matter of Lester NN., 76 AD2d 687, 688).

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 975, 488 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jamie-l-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack