Sanjivini K., Matter of
| Citation | 391 N.E.2d 1316,418 N.Y.S.2d 339,47 N.Y.2d 374 |
| Parties | , 391 N.E.2d 1316 In the Matter of SANJIVINI K. (Anonymous), a child alleged to be neglected. ROCKLAND COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent, v. USHA K. (Anonymous), Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 12 June 1979 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Frank L. Amoroso, Floral Park, for appellant.
Marc L. Parris, County Atty. (John B. Franklin, New City, of counsel), for respondent.
Louis J. Artale, New City, Law Guardian for infant.
Charles Schinitsky, Brooklyn, Morris Kaplan, Kalman Finkel, John E. Kirklin and Carol Kellermann, New York City, for The Legal Aid Society of New York City, amicus curiae.
In this case a mother who temporarily placed her infant daughter with the Rockland County Department of Social Services for foster care seeks to regain custody of the child. The department has repeatedly denied her requests and for several years has sought to offer the child for adoption by attempting to prove, in successive proceedings and on a variety of grounds, that the mother is unfit. Despite financial and legal obstacles the mother has maintained ties with her daughter and in the various proceedings it has been held, by the Family Court or on appeal, that she has not abandoned or neglected the child and is not otherwise unfit. Now the department claims, and the Appellate Division has held, that it would be in the child's "best interests" that she be freed for adoption by the foster parents with whom she has resided throughout the prolonged litigation.
On this appeal the mother argues that statutory and constitutional limitations prohibit the State from purporting to act in the child's "best interests" by offering her for adoption by foster parents when the child has not been permanently surrendered, abandoned or neglected by her mother who has sought, for many years, to resume custody and support.
The appellant, Usha K, was born in India. She is an only child whose father died when she was 12. She and her mother then moved to Bombay. When she was 14 years old she began working full time and attended secretarial school at night so that she might eventually earn enough money to come to this country for a college education. She arrived in the United States in 1962 and began to study agriculture and nutrition. Two years later she obtained an associate degree from the State University system. That same year her mother died in India.
While in New York the appellant met an Indian student who apparently agreed to marry her; but when she later became pregnant, in 1965, he deserted her. She dropped out of school and in May of 1966 her daughter, Sanjivini, was born in Rockland County. Unwed and temporarily unable to support the child she agreed to place her in the custody of the Department of Social Services. She refused, however, to surrender the child for adoption and would only consent to temporary foster care.
After the birth of the child the appellant did not return to school. Instead she obtained a job in order to reimburse the department for medical expenses and also to contribute to the support of her daughter. In May of 1967 the immigration authorities commenced deportation proceedings claiming that her student visa had expired. These proceedings were suspended when the Department of Social Services, concerned that the child might be removed to India, filed a neglect petition in the Family Court and obtained a temporary order of placement. Later, after a hearing, the Family Court issued a dispositional order which, although continuing the placement for 12 months, expressly states that "the Court has no finding concerning any acts of the mother that might have constituted a neglect."
In the latter part of 1967 the appellant returned to school after reimbursing the department $800 for her medical expenses. With the aid of a scholarship and part-time employment she attended a university in Maryland and then in North Carolina, which apparently were the only schools within her means which offered the necessary courses. She still continued to visit her child when able, generally once every two or three months. When her education was completed she returned to New York. In the interim her daughter had resided in two foster homes. In 1968 she had been transferred to the foster parents with whom she still resides.
In November, 1970 the appellant asked the Department of Social Services to return the child and also requested that they assist her in obtaining employment in Rockland County. At that time the child was four years old and had resided with the foster parents for only two years. But the agency refused to return her and did little or nothing to help the mother make possible the child's return. Apparently the agency worker assigned to the case merely furnished appellant with the names and addresses of two potential employers, selected from the telephone book, and did nothing more even though the appellant informed her that she had already been denied employment at those locations.
Thereafter the appellant was unable to find a job in Rockland County largely, the Appellate Division has noted, because of her immigrant status (53 A.D.2d 863, 385 N.Y.S.2d 354). Finally she obtained clerical employment in New York City. She contributes monthly to the child's support and once every other week she travels from New York City to Rockland County to visit the girl. Over the years the department has repeatedly refused to return the child and instead has sought in various proceedings to free the child for adoption by the foster parents by attempting to show that the mother is unfit.
In 1973 the department filed a permanent neglect petition. But, after a hearing, the Family Court concluded in 1974, that the mother had not neglected the child. The mother then filed a petition to terminate custody. While that application was pending she asked the department to permit her to take her daughter to her apartment in New York City, during visitations, in order to ease the transition from foster care. The department however, repeatedly refused to allow visitation on these terms and the mother's visits lapsed. However she resumed visitation in Rockland County when the Family Court denied her application to terminate custody. *
The department then claimed, during a proceeding to periodically review the foster care placement (Social Services Law, § 392), that the mother had abandoned the child in 1974 by refusing to visit her on the terms fixed by the department. At the conclusion of that hearing the Family Court found that it was in the best interests of the child that her permanent status be ascertained as soon as possible. The court directed the department or the foster parents to file a petition to free the child for adoption and further ordered that if such a proceeding is not commenced within 30 days foster care would terminate and the child would be returned to her mother.
The Appellate Division reversed and directed that the child be immediately returned to her mother's custody. The court noted that the mother is employed and financially able to support the child, that the department had found her apartment "nicely furnished with moderate accommodations but adequate" and that she had made arrangements for schooling and after-school day care for the child. The court also noted that the record indicates that there is a significant possibility that her immigration status "will ultimately be stabilized and validated". With respect to the charge of abandonment the Appellate Division stated (53 A.D.2d 863, 385 N.Y.S.2d 350).
On appeal to our court it was noted that the department had already filed the petition directed by the Family Court and in that related proceeding the court had held that the child had been permanently neglected. Noting also that that determination was then on appeal to the Appellate Division we concluded (40 N.Y.2d 1025 1026, 391 N.Y.S.2d 535, 536, 359 N.E.2d 1330, 1331) that the record then before us was incomplete and that "the present foster care review proceeding is not the appropriate judicial vehicle in which to determine the permanent status of the child". Accordingly we reversed, and without expressing any view as to "whether the child should remain with her foster parents or be returned to her mother", reinstated the Family Court order which directed the filing of the petition.
Now we have the record of that related proceeding before us. It shows that the Family Court conducted a hearing on the department's petition and found that the mother had "permanently neglected" the child by failing to plan for her future although financially able to do so and despite diligent efforts by the department to encourage her relationship with the child (see Family Ct. Act, § 614; Social Services Law, § 384-b, subd. 7). The court conceded that the appellant's educational plan had been successfully completed but found that this plan had been for the mother's benefit and not for the benefit of the child. In support of this conclusion the court found that while the mother was completing her education ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marilyn H., Matter of
...... See Matter of Suzanne, 77 A.D.2d 433, 436, 433 N.Y.S.2d 580 (1st Dept.); see also Matter of Donna, 70 A.D.2d 188, 191, 192, 194, 420 N.Y.S.2d 576 (2nd Dept.). . In Matter of Sanjivini, 47 N.Y.2d 374, 418 N.Y.S.2d 339, 391 N.E.2d 1316, however, the Court rejected the latitude to consider the child's best interests that had been derived from Bennett (47 N.Y.2d at p. 381, 418 N.Y.S.2d 339, 391 N.E.2d 1316). Sanjivini obviously serves the salutary purpose of limiting judicial ......
-
Alfredo S. v. Nassau County Dept. of Social Services
... . Page 123 . 568 N.Y.S.2d 123 . 172 A.D.2d 528, 59 USLW 2727 . In the Matter of ALFREDO S. (Anonymous), Appellant, . v. . NASSAU COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent. . Supreme Court, Appellate Division, . Second ... that will further the child's best interests (see, Matter of Male Infant L., 61 N.Y.2d 420, 474 N.Y.S.2d 447, 462 N.E.2d 1165; Matter of Sanjivini K., 47 N.Y.2d 374, 418 N.Y.S.2d 339, 391 N.E.2d 1316; see generally, Matter of Dickson v. Lascaris, 53 N.Y.2d 204, 440 N.Y.S.2d 884, 423 N.E.2d ......
-
Daniel C., Matter of
...... Page 687 . consent, abandonment, neglect or proven unfitness, even though some might find adoption to be in the child's best interests (Matter of Corey L. v. Martin L., 45 N.Y.2d 383 [408 N.Y.S.2d 439, 380 N.E.2d 266])" (Matter of Sanjivini K., 47 N.Y.2d 374, 382, 418 N.Y.S.2d 339, 391 N.E.2d 1316; see, also, Matter of Ricky Ralph M. 56 N.Y.2d 77, 451 N.Y.S.2d 41, 436 N.E.2d 491). A natural parent's "desire for and right to 'the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children' " is an interest far more precious ......
-
La Croix v. Deyo
... . Page 864 . 447 N.Y.S.2d 864 . 113 Misc.2d 89 . In the Matter of the Paternity Petition of Ariel LA CROIX, Petitioner, . v. . Richard M. DEYO, Administrator of the Estate of Debra . Campbell Deyo, Deceased, ...v. Martin L., 45 N.Y.2d 383, 391, 408 N.Y.S.2d 439, 380 N.E.2d 266; Matter of Sanjivini K., 47 N.Y.2d 374, 382, 418 N.Y.S.2d 339, 391 N.E.2d 1316; Matter of Dickson v. Lascaris, 53 N.Y.2d 204, 208, 440 N.Y.S.2d 884, 423 N.E.2d 361; ......