In re Karl W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Karl W.

168 A.D.2d 997

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 997 (In re Karl W.) 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 Karl W., 168 A.D.2d 997 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Onondaga County Family Court for a new fact-finding hearing. Memorandum: In this abuse and neglect proceeding, Family Court erred in ordering the Law Guardian, appointed pursuant to Family Court Act §§ 241 and 249 (a), to refrain from contacting the children whom she represented. We cannot perceive how the Law Guardian can act effectively to protect children in the course of a fact-finding hearing in the absence of meaningful communication with them (see generally, Matter of Orlando F., 40 NY2d 103, 112). Thus, Family Court’s order, under the circumstances of this case, deprived the children of effective assistance of counsel (see, Matter of Karl S., 118 AD2d 1002, 1003). Further, we find that the court did not err in denying the Law Guardian’s recusal application (see, People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403). In view of our determination, we do not address petitioner’s and the Law Guardian’s remaining contentions. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Family Court, McLaughlin, J.—child ? abuse.) Present—Denman, ? J. P., Boomer, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Onondaga County Family Court for a new fact-finding hearing. Memorandum: In this abuse and neglect proceeding, Family Court erred in ordering the Law Guardian, appointed pursuant to Family Court Act §§ 241 and 249 (a), to refrain from contacting the children whom she represented. We cannot perceive how the Law Guardian can act effectively to protect children in the course of a fact-finding hearing in the absence of meaningful communication with them (see generally, Matter of Orlando F., 40 NY2d 103, 112). Thus, Family Court’s order, under the circumstances of this case, deprived the children of effective assistance of counsel (see, Matter of Karl S., 118 AD2d 1002, 1003). Further, we find that the court did not err in denying the Law Guardian’s recusal application (see, People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403). In view of our determination, we do not address petitioner’s and the Law Guardian’s remaining contentions. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Family Court, McLaughlin, J.—child ? abuse.) Present—Denman, ? J. P., Boomer, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-karl-w-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack