In re John H.

48 A.D.2d 879, 369 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10125
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 16, 1975
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 48 A.D.2d 879 (In re John H.) 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 John H., 48 A.D.2d 879, 369 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

In two consolidated proceedings, in which respective adjudications of the Family Court, Kings County, that appellant is a person in need of supervision and a juvenile delinquent were made, the appeal is from an order of said court, dated December 11, 1974, which, upon the juvenile delinquency adjudication, ordered appellant placed with the Division for Youth, Title III (State Training School). Order reversed, without costs, and case remanded to the Family Court for a further dispositional hearing and further proceedings not inconsistent with the views herein set forth. In our opinion it was an improvident exercise of discretion to commit appellant to the State Training School. The record indicates that the Office of Probation for the courts of New York City failed to make any effort to follow the primary recommendation of a psychiatrist of the Bureau of Mental Health Services (Family Court) encompassing individual psychother[880]*880apy, family counseling, and temporary placement with another family member. Therefore, the feasibility of such a course of action was never tested. The psychiatrist also recommended that, if such a course of action were not feasible, placement in a nonsecure residential setting should be entertained. This course of action was not fully explored because of a lack of co-operation on appellant’s part. In our view, placement in a State Training School is a drastic course of action that should, where there are suitable options, only be used as a last resort (cf. Matter of M., 40 AD2d 977). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Brennan and Shapiro, JJ., concur; Cohalan and Munder, JJ. dissent and vote to affirm.

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

Related

In re Gregory M.
224 A.D.2d 428 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re Jorge F.
215 A.D.2d 296 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Flores ex rel. Galvez-Maldonado v. Meese
942 F.2d 1352 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)
Flores v. Meese
942 F.2d 1352 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)
In re Williams
120 Misc. 2d 257 (NYC Family Court, 1983)
In re Cecil L.
71 A.D.2d 917 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
In re Michael R.
70 A.D.2d 521 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
In re Earl M.
57 A.D.2d 960 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
48 A.D.2d 879, 369 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-john-h-nyappdiv-1975.