Matter of Hayden N. (Huguette K.)
Annotate this CaseDecided on September 25, 2023
Family Court, Monroe County
In the Matter of the Permanency Hearing Regarding Hayden N.,
A Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years
Alleged to be Neglected by Huguette K., Respondent.
Docket No. NN-XXXXXXX
The Monroe County Department of Human Services, Division of Social Services, by Special Prosecutor, Margaret McMullen Reston, Esq.
Huguette K. by Sarah Splain Holt, Assistant Conflict Defender
The Legal Aid Society, by Meghan Rae Olsowski, Esq., Attorney for the Child
Dandrea L. Ruhlmann, J.
DECISION AND ORDER
This case has a protracted procedural history. On December 3, 2021 Hon. James Walsh signed a removal order, upon the consent of Respondent-Mother Huguette K. ("Respondent-Mother"), which, among other things, ordered a permanency hearing to be held on July 19, 2022, for the child, Hayden N. (DOB: XX/XX/2021). On January 1, 2022 the case was transferred to Hon. Julie Hahn. The case was then transferred to Hon. Fatimat O. Reid, who held an initial court appearance on August 1, 2022. On September 16, 2022, Hon. Reid recused herself and the case was transferred, including pending motions, to this Court for oral argument on September 28, 2022. This Court denied both Respondent-Mother's application to change venue and her application to move the child to a foster family in Erie County. The Court found in part, that the child should remain in Monroe County where he had lived his entire life, including at the time of the alleged neglect.[FN1] On September 28, 2022, the July 2022 permanency hearing was still pending. Respondent-Mother did not consent to a finding that the Petitioner Monroe County Department of Human Services (DHS) engaged in reasonable efforts. The reasonable efforts hearing began on October 3, 2022. After several days of trial, this Court rendered an oral decision on August 18, 2023.
The Court finds that DHS failed to exercise reasonable efforts in effectuating the child's permanency goal of return to parent for the period of time from December 3, 2021 through August 3, 2022. The Court finds that the child shall remain in foster care in Monroe County, New York in accordance with the best interests and safety of the child. The Court approves the goal of return to parent for permanency planning.
Background
Respondent-Mother attended high school in Rochester, New York at the age of seventeen (17). She was a refugee from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, who was accompanied by her mother and brother into the United States. Respondent-Mother is now 24 years old (DOB: XX/XX/1999).
DHS sought and the Court granted removal of Hayden from Respondent-Mother finding there was imminent risk of harm because law enforcement found Respondent-Mother, the sole care provider of Hayden (then age 3 months) to be highly intoxicated. Respondent-Mother was mental hygiene arrested at the Motel 6 where she and the child were residing and transported to URMC-Strong Memorial Hospital where she was charged with Endangering the Welfare of a Child. Respondent-Mother had an extremely high and potentially fatal blood alcohol content of .406. While at Strong Hospital, Respondent-Mother vocalized suicidal ideations and underwent a psychological evaluation.
Hayden's foster care mother and her paramour are both attorneys who have worked in the Department of Law, Children Services Unit of the Monroe County Department of Human Services.[FN2] DHS appointed a special prosecutor, Alison Carling, Esq. who the Court later relieved (for personal reasons). A subsequent special prosecutor, Margaret McMullen Reston, Esq. prosecuted the case.[FN3] Foster mother and her paramour filed a motion to intervene on May 17, 2023, pursuant to Social Services Law § 383 (3) and CPLR 1012 (a) (1). DHS filed a termination of parental rights petition against Respondent-Mother on September 26, 2022 and withdrew it on October 12, 2022. DHS filed a second termination of parental rights petition against Respondent-Mother on February 22, 2023 which is pending before the Court.
Findings of Fact
Respondent-Mother consented to the child's removal. Respondent-Mother's first language is Swahili. She requires a Swahili interpreter. Although Respondent-Mother lived in the Rochester area for approximately 7 years she was unable or unwilling to use the bus as public transportation. When discharged from the hospital after her mental hygiene arrest and removal of her child in December 2022, she was no longer able to return to her emergency housing placement at the Motel 6. She then resided at the Sanctuary House but was asked to leave due to [*2]her ongoing intoxication and aggressive behaviors against other persons living at the shelter. Next she lived at the YWCA. DHS' witness, Monroe County Caseworker Bridget Bishop, testified she did not know why Respondent-Mother left the YWCA. Respondent-Mother then resided at the House of Mercy conditioned on her completing both a chemical dependency and mental health evaluation.
Caseworker Bishop admitted Respondent-Mother's first supervised visit was hamstrung because of poor communication between the two DHS assigned caseworkers and Respondent-Mother. Respondent-Mother indicated that she did not know how to use the bus to get to the visitation center. Since Respondent-Mother requested help with transportation, DHS imposed an additional requirement that she call in advance to confirm her visit. Caseworker Bishop also admitted that such a "call to confirm" requirement was unusual, and typically reserved for a parent who has missed three consecutive visits. Still, the "call to confirm" prerequisite made sense to Caseworker Bishop because it ensured that the child was not unnecessarily transported to the visitation center.
One DHS caseworker arranged to drive Respondent-Mother to the visit, while another caseworker waited for Respondent-Mother to confirm. At 9:00 a.m., Respondent-Mother called the caseworker responsible for transporting her, but not the caseworker awaiting her confirmation. The caseworkers failed to communicate with each other.
The caseworker who was to transport Respondent-Mother told her that she was heading to the designated pick up location at 9:00 a.m. When there was no sign of the caseworker by 10:30 a.m., Respondent-Mother called the transporting caseworker again. Anxious she might miss the visit, Respondent-Mother explained to the caseworker that Kaszimeri M.[FN4] had driven her to the visitation center.
Upon arriving at the visitation center Respondent-Mother was informed her visit was cancelled because she failed to confirm, as required. Caseworker Bishop testified she did not know whether either of the caseworkers used a Language Line interpreter to communicate with Respondent-Mother. After the failed initial visit, Respondent-Mother had two successful supervised visits; where her interactions were appropriate with baby Hayden.
After she completed those two successful in person supervised visits,[FN5] Respondent-Mother left Rochester. She did not notify DHS of her move. DHS caseworkers tried to find her, calling the Rochester Center for Refugee Health (RCRH) and learned Respondent-Mother had not attended RCRH for a couple of weeks. DHS later learned that Respondent-Mother had relocated to the City of Buffalo, Erie County, New York, where she was living with her own Mother.
On January 5, 2022, Caseworker Bishop used the Language Line to speak with Respondent-Mother, who confirmed she was living in Buffalo and that she planned to visit her child once a week in Rochester. A second DHS caseworker spoke with Respondent-Mother on [*3]January 10, 2022, using the Language Line interpreter. Respondent-Mother advised she would not be visiting her child in Rochester that day. The caseworker told Respondent-Mother that in addition to in person visits, virtual visits could be established. Respondent-Mother agreed.
On January 12, 2022, Caseworker Bishop called Respondent-Mother in Buffalo, using the Language Line interpreter and told her due to COVID-19 restrictions she could only offer Respondent-Mother one in person visit a week requiring Respondent-Mother to travel to Rochester. Respondent-Mother again agreed. Caseworker Bishop, however, testified she was unsure whether DHS had approved the use of the Language Line to translate during virtual visits.
On January 21, 2022, the child was transported to the visitation center by Medical Motors for a virtual visit with Respondent-Mother. The visit did not occur because Respondent-Mother had difficulty logging in via Zoom.
On January 24, 2022, Respondent-Mother did not attend her court appearance. On January 28, 2022, Respondent-Mother missed a virtual visit via Zoom. On February 3, 2022, Respondent-Mother did not answer a telephone call by DHS and did not participate in the child's Service Plan Review (SPR). On February 8, 2022, Caseworker Bishop tried to call Respondent-Mother but was unsuccessful.
On February 15, 2022, the Erie County Department of Human Services assigned a secondary Caseworker, Miranda Shattuck-Hall, to assist DHS. Caseworker Shattuck-Hall and Caseworker Bishop agreed that Caseworker Shattuck-Hall was to assist Respondent-Mother in obtaining services. Erie County would not pay for the cost of any services rather, Respondent-Mother's Medicaid would pay. Caseworker Shattuck-Hall's responsibilities included a once a month home visit with Respondent-Mother.
On February 17, 2022, Respondent-Mother left Caseworker Bishop a message stating she had a new telephone number. The next day, February 18, 2022, unannounced, Caseworker Shattuck-Hall met in person with Respondent-Mother, at Respondent-Mother's home, using a Language Line interpreter. She explained that Respondent-Mother needed to have a mental health evaluation and a chemical dependency evaluation. Respondent-Mother told Caseworker Shattuck-Hall she had Medicaid but she needed help to apply for temporary assistance. Respondent-Mother told the caseworker she had no means to travel to Rochester. Caseworker Shattuck-Hall asked Respondent-Mother if she had relatives who would assist her and she asked if Respondent-Mother knew how to use the bus. She did not offer Respondent-Mother a bus pass. By practice, Erie County DHS does not provide bus passes to parents under their supervision.[FN6] Respondent-Mother did not attend the virtual visit via Zoom with her child that day.
On February 22, 2022, Caseworker Shattuck-Hall and Respondent-Mother met again as scheduled. The caseworker brought a Temporary Assistance application, written in English, service providers telephone numbers and some language access information. An email [FN7] [*4]exchange between Caseworker Shattuck-Hall and Caseworker Bishop reveals additional information including that Caseworker Shattuck-Hall used a Language Line interpreter and gave Respondent-Mother a "menu" which was translated into Swahili. The email communication reflects that Caseworker Shattuck-Hall also gave Respondent-Mother the name of a provider, Endeavor Help Services, an agency that undertakes both substance abuse as well as mental health evaluations, which was within walking distance to Respondent-Mother's home. Respondent-Mother told Caseworker Shattuck-Hall that she did not know how to complete the Temporary Assistance application, nor obtain a substance abuse and, or a mental health evaluation. Caseworker Shattuck-Hall planned to schedule another home visit to assist Respondent-Mother.
On February 25, 2022, Respondent-Mother did not attend the virtual visit via Zoom. On February 28, 2022, Respondent-Mother left a voice mail message for Caseworker Shattuck-Hall seeking assistance to complete the Temporary Assistance application.
In early March 2022, both Caseworkers Bishop and Shattuck-Hall considered transporting the child to Buffalo and providing supervision for visits with Respondent-Mother. Caseworker Bishop testified DHS rejected this plan because it had not been done before where a parent lived in the City of Buffalo. By email Caseworker Shattuck-Hall also confirmed she had not yet completed a full assessment of Respondent-Mother's home.
On March 4, 2022, Respondent-Mother did not attend a visit.[FN8] On March 7, 2022, Caseworker Shattuck-Hall contacted Hope Refugee Drop In Center in Erie County to try to get someone to help Respondent-Mother complete the Temporary Assistance application and to connect her with other services. Caseworker Shattuck-Hall also sent a referral to the Jewish Community Center for a parenting education program. The Jewish Community Center did not connect with Respondent-Mother.
On March 11, 2022, Respondent-Mother missed her scheduled visit.[FN9] On March 17, 2022, Caseworker Shattuck-Hall made an unannounced home visit. No one answered the door. Caseworker Bishop testified that there are no notes in the DHS case note system reflecting that Caseworker Shattuck-Hall called or wrote to Respondent-Mother, prior to that unannounced visit. Caseworker Shattuck-Hall left her business card and information about how Respondent-Mother could access the Language Line, but only a portion of the language access sheet was in Respondent-Mother's primary language, Swahili. Caseworker Shattuck-Hall also dropped off information in English about the evaluations which Respondent-Mother needed to undertake.
On March 25, 2022, and on April 1, 2022 respectively, Respondent-Mother missed her scheduled visits.[FN10] On April 5, 2022, Caseworker Bridget Bishop telephoned Respondent-[*5]Mother. She told Respondent-Mother that Kaszimeri M. was not Hayden's father, and Respondent-Mother suggested another putative father, Steve B.[FN11]
On April 8, 2022, Erie County Caseworker Shattuck-Hall emailed the Jewish Community Center to see if Respondent-Mother was in compliance with parenting classes. There was also a visit scheduled. Respondent-Mother missed her scheduled visit.[FN12] On April 12, 2022, Respondent-Mother missed a court appearance.
Between April 15, 2022 and May 6, 2022 Respondent-Mother missed four consecutive scheduled weekly visits.[FN13]
On May 16, 2022, Respondent-Mother answered the phone and participated in the child's SPR with the Language Line providing interpretation in Swahili. Respondent-Mother's disposition plan and the Adoption and Safe Families Act, were reviewed. Caseworker Shattuck-Hall, did not attend, testifying that typically she participates in the SPR, but had not done so.
A plan was established for Respondent-Mother to attend the next court date on June 15, 2022 in Rochester. DHS did take steps to facilitate Respondent-Mother's in person visit with her child, but DHS failed to send timely Respondent-Mother the bus tickets to Rochester. The tickets arrived two days after the court date frustrating Respondent-Mother's ability to visit. Respondent-Mother missed both her in person visit and the court appearance.
On May 27, 2022, and June 3, 2022 respectively, Respondent-Mother missed her scheduled visit.[FN14] On June 21, 2022 Caseworker Bishop emailed Caseworker Shattuck-Hall checking to see if Caseworker Shattuck-Hall had any contact with Respondent-Mother since April. Caseworker Shattuck-Hall responded, "No, sorry I have not" and explained she would "swing by" Respondent-Mother's house unannounced later that day. An email on June 22, 2022 from Caseworker Shattuck-Hall reflects she went to Respondent-Mother's home on June 21, 2022, unannounced and spoke to maternal grandmother who was home. Maternal grandmother thought Respondent-Mother was at the store and did not know when she would return. When Caseworker Shattuck-Hall returned to her office, she had three telephone messages from Respondent-Mother. Caseworker Shattuck-Hall did not return Respondent-Mother's calls that day. Instead she planned to connect with Respondent-Mother the next day.
Inexplicably, both caseworkers testified that on June 21, 2022 Caseworker Shattuck-Hall visited Respondent-Mother "at home using the language line." Still Caseworker Shattuck-Hall maintains Respondent-Mother became upset and hung up on the interpreter, telling Caseworker Shattuck-Hall she knew how to speak English. Caseworker Shattuck-Hall admits she did not bring the public assistance application to that visit. More troubling, while both in person visitation and virtual visits were discussed, neither Respondent-Mother nor Caseworker Shattuck-Hall knew the visitation schedule. Respondent-Mother did emphasize she still did not [*6]know how to use Zoom for virtual visits. Caseworker Bishop testified that Caseworker Shattuck-Hall offered to show Respondent-Mother how to use Zoom. Yet Caseworker Shattuck-Hall's own testimony is opposite, testifying she made no such offer. Both Caseworkers agree that Respondent-Mother insisted on seeing her child in person, and did not want virtual visits. Frustrated, Respondent-Mother said she did not want to go to court unless she would get her baby back at court.
On June 28, 2022, Caseworker Bishop communicated with Caseworker Shattuck-Hall who was unaware of the day to day details of the case. Caseworker Shattuck-Hall testified that she consistently emailed Caseworker Bishop, but such communications were not documented in DHS' case note system.
On July 8, 2022, the two caseworkers communicated. Respondent-Mother was not engaged in services and Respondent-Mother did not want virtual visits. Caseworker Shattuck-Hall reported that she had mapped the route from Respondent-Mother's home to the service provider, Endeavor Help Services, including a picture of the front of the building so Respondent-Mother would be able to recognize the building. Caseworker Shattuck-Hall reported that she offered to assist Respondent-Mother with the Temporary Assistance application but found the application was already submitted and Respondent-Mother was receiving some assistance. Caseworker Bishop asked Caseworker Shattuck-Hall to obtain an email address for Respondent-Mother so she could send bus tickets for the next court appearance in a timely fashion. Caseworker Bishop was also still trying to locate the second named putative father.
On July 15, 2022, Caseworker Bishop sent Respondent-Mother a letter reminding her to participate in visitation and SPRs and providing information about the Adoption and Safe Families Act. No evidence showed this letter was translated into Swahili.
On July 29, 2022, Caseworker Shattuck-Hall made another unsuccessful, unannounced visit to Respondent-Mother's home. She left her business card and information about service providers, including Endeavor Help Services and the Hope Refugee Drop In Center. No evidence showed this information was translated into Swahili.
On August 1, 2022, Respondent-Mother attended a court appearance before Hon. Fatima Reid via telephone, using an interpreter. Respondent-Mother's attorney made an application for DHS to provide Respondent-Mother with a cell phone. DHS agreed to investigate whether a phone could be provided with limited minutes, under their comprehensive service plan.
DHS did not provide a cell phone. Instead, the child's maternal grandmother purchased a cell phone but kept the cell phone with her during the day while she worked. Neither Caseworker Bishop nor Caseworker Shattuck-Hall attempted to call Respondent-Mother after 5:00 p.m. when grandmother returned home from work.
Statement of Law
Family Court has continuous jurisdiction from the day a child is placed in foster care until the date that permanency is achieved (Family Court Act § 1088). When a child continues in an out-of-home placement, Article 10-A of the Family Court Act "provides for an initial permanency hearing within 8 months of a child's removal from home, and subsequent permanency hearing(s) every six months thereafter" (Matter of Lacee L. [Stephanie L.] , 32 NY3d 219, 226 [2018], and see Family Court Act § 1089 [a] [3]). One purpose of a permanency hearing is to audit, under a preponderance of the evidence standard, whether an agency is [*7]meeting its legal obligations and to review a parent's compliance with the approved service plan (Matter of the St. Vincent's Services, 17 Misc 3d 443, [Fam Ct., Kings County 2007], citing Matter of Belinda B., 114 AD2d 70 [4th Dept 1986]).
When a child is not returned to his parent, the Court must find whether the permanency goal for the child should be approved or modified and the anticipated date for achieving the goal. The Court must determine whether reasonable efforts have been made to effectuate the child's permanency plan (Family Court Act § 1089 [d] [2] [iii]; see Matter of Lafvorne B., 44 AD3d 653 [2d Dept 2007]). In the case of a child whose permanency goal is return to parent, the Court must inquire whether DHS has made reasonable efforts both to eliminate the need for placement and to enable the child to return safely home (Family Court Act §1089 [d] [2] [iii] [A]).
After each permanency hearing, a court shall, upon the proof adduced, which includes age-appropriate consultation with the child, if applicable, and in accordance with the best interests and safety of the child, determine and issue its findings including the permanency goal and determining whether reasonable efforts have been made to effectuate the child's permanency plan (Family Court Act § 1089 [d] [2] [iii]). Where a child has been freed for adoption, the permanency order may also direct that such child be placed for adoption in the foster family home where he or she resides or has resided or with any other suitable person or persons (Family Court Act § 1089 [d] [2] [viii] [B] [I]).
In Matter of Taylor EE (80 AD3d 822 [3d Dept 2011]) the Appellate Court affirmed Family Court's findings of no reasonable efforts where the Petitioner did not find a permanency resource for a child placed in residential care. There, although the child's three siblings were adopted by one family, petitioner did not inquire of the adoptive mother whether she would consider to be a permanency resource for the child until the day of the hearing (compare Matter of Michael WW., 45 AD3d 1227, 1228-1229 [3d Dept 2007] [efforts reasonable to achieve permanency goal of adoption were found where petitioner listed child in photo-list; maintained contact with a former foster parent and current foster parent for child's brother and kept Family Court informed of its placement progress through biweekly written reports]; Matter of Bianca QQ, 80 AD3d 809 [3d Dept 2011] [efforts reasonable to achieve permanency goal of return to parent were found despite that petitioner should have provided more specificity in its permanency reports regarding dates services were provided]).
The Court's "determinations following a permanency hearing must be made in accordance with the best interests and safety of the child, including whether the child would be at risk of abuse or neglect if returned to the parent" (Matter of Leila I., 191 AD3d 878,887 [2d Dept 2021] [internal quotations omitted])
"Great deference is accorded the Family Court, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a substantial basis in the record" (Matter of Rosaliyahh C., 200 AD3d 1036 [2d Dept 2021], citing Matter of Darlene L., 38 AD3d 552, 554 [2d Dept 2007]). The Court found the witnesses to be credible, despite their lack of proficient record keeping.
The Court takes a negative inference because Respondent-Mother failed to testify at this permanency hearing (see Matter of Raymond D., 45 AD3d 1415 [4th Dept 2007]).
Conclusion
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to DHS, the Court finds that DHS failed [*8]to exercise reasonable efforts effectuating the child's permanency goal of return to parent for the period from December 3, 2021 until August 3, 2022. DHS did little to assist Respondent-Mother in obtaining services in her primary language of Swahili. In part, the history of this case highlights the difficulties that DHS has in providing services to a non-English speaking mother. Respondent-Mother's proposed dispositional plan was written in both English and Swahili but she was not consistently given information in Swahili affording Respondent-Mother the tools needed to access services; including, a chemical dependency evaluation, a mental health evaluation and parenting training. Respondent-Mother was never connected with an in-person Swahili interpreter to help her navigate such services. Further, DHS failed to present adequate evidence of whether written information given to Respondent-Mother was translated into Swahili.
Respondent Mother was unreasonably denied minimal visits with her child. DHS tried to help Respondent-Mother by providing a caseworker to transport Respondent-Mother to her first in-person visit with Hayden. Respondent-Mother's visit was cancelled because Respondent-Mother confirmed her visit with the transporting caseworker, not the confirming caseworker, and the two caseworkers failed to communicate with each other.
A plan was established for Respondent-Mother to attend a later court date on June 15, 2022 in Rochester. DHS did take steps to facilitate Respondent-Mother's in person visit with her child (on the same day), but DHS failed to send timely Respondent-Mother the bus tickets to Rochester. The tickets arrived two days after the court date frustrating Respondent-Mother's ability to visit. Respondent-Mother missed both her in person visit and the court appearance.
Over a five and one-half month timeframe, (from January 21, 2022 to August 3, 2022) caseworkers failed to instruct Respondent-Mother how to use Zoom to ensure she had the capability to visit virtually with her child; nor was a cell phone provided to Respondent-Mother. DHS caseworkers also did not attempt to call Respondent-Mother after 5:00 p.m. when Respondent-Mother's own mother returned home from work, with the family's only cell phone.
Although Respondent-Mother moved to Buffalo without informing DHS, DHS connected with her on January 5, 2022. A secondary Erie County DHS assignment was on made on February 18, 2022. The Erie County caseworker was to have a monthly home visit with Respondent-Mother. The Erie County caseworker failed to meet monthly with Respondent-Mother, visiting twice in February, at some point in June, and again in July 2022. DHS did not provide evidence of any other home visit.
Finally, as early as February 2022, DHS caseworkers documented Respondent-Mother's repeated request for help in completing a Temporary Assistance application. Respondent-Mother sought such help not once, but three times. Only sometime in July 2022 did Caseworker Shattuck-Hall note that Respondent-Mother was receiving some of her entitled temporary assistance, which Respondent-Mother obtained without DHS assistance.
At this time, Respondent-Mother clearly has not completed any of the required services and she has missed numerous visits and court appearances. The child, who has special needs, is thriving in the home of his foster parents, where he has lived for approximately 18 months. They are an adoptive resource. All of the child's specialized services are in Rochester, New York.
The Court finds that DHS' reasonable efforts to support a return to parent goal (from the date of this Order) would require all of DHS' communications with Respondent-Mother, whether [*9]written or verbal be conveyed in Swahili.
Respondent-Mother, at times, has appeared to subvert DHS' efforts, such as not complying with services while in Monroe County, moving out of Monroe County away from her child, and failing to notify DHS of her move. Respondent-Mother must remedy her shortcomings with full engagement in services, visitation and court appearances.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby
ADJUDGED that Monroe County Department of Human Services did not engage in reasonable efforts to effectuate Hayden N.'s permanency goal of return to parent for the period of time from December 3, 2021 through August 3, 2022; and it is further
ORDERED that the child shall remain in foster care in Monroe County, New York in accordance with the best interests and safety of the child; and it is further
ORDERED that the permanency goal for Hayden N. for the period of this permanency hearing (December 3, 2021 through August 3, 2022) is return to parent.
Dated this 25th day of September, 2023 at Rochester, New York.
HON. DANDREA L. RUHLMANNFAMILY COURT JUDGE
PURSUANT TO SECTION 1113 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AN APPEAL MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY APPELLANT IN COURT, THIRTY-FIVE DAYS FROM THE MAILING OF THE ORDER TO THE APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT, OR THIRTY DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD UPON THE APPELLANT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST. Footnotes
Footnote 1: Respondent-Mother consented to neglect on January 24, 2023 pursuant to Family Court Act §1051 (a) and the Court entered a finding of neglect against her.
Footnote 2: Hon. Reid recused herself, for reasons unrelated to the foster mother being employed as an attorney in the Department of Law, Children Services Unit of the Monroe County Department of Human Services.
Footnote 3: Compare County Law § 701(1) [appointment of a special district attorney and People v Adams (20 NY3d 608 [2013] [in rare situations a court may appoint a special attorney if there is even an appearance of impropriety to encourage public confidence in our government and our system of law].
Footnote 4: Hon. Walsh's Removal Order included an Order of Protection that Respondent-Mother was to have no contact with Kaszimeri M. a/ka Cashmere M., originally thought to be the putative father but who was excluded by DNA results .
Footnote 5: Respondent-Mother made two out of the five initial visits.
Footnote 6: Monroe County DHS does provide bus passes. Hope Refugee Center Drop In Center (Buffalo, New York) apparently gives clients bus passes if they are engaged in counseling.
Footnote 7: Petitioner's Exhibit 2, received into evidence on June16, 2023 contains email communications some of which were entered into DHS' official case note system, others of which were not, and some of the emails appear to contradict the testimony of Caseworker Bishop and/or Caseworker Shattuck-Hall, and range in date from February 18, 2022 until August 26, 2022, however, for the purpose of this first permanency hearing the Court 's review ends on August 3, 2022.
Footnote 8: Caseworker Bishop did not testify as to whether the visit was virtual or in-person.
Footnote 9: Caseworker Bishop did not specify whether the visit was virtual or in-person.
Footnote 10: Caseworker Bishop did not specify whether the visits were virtual or in-person.
Footnote 11: He is not located to date.
Footnote 12: Caseworker Bishop did not specify whether the visit was virtual or in-person.
Footnote 13: Caseworker Bishop did not specify whether such visits were virtual or in-person.
Footnote 14: Caseworker Bishop did not specify whether the visits were virtual or in-person.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
