P., In re

• Citation: 310 N.Y.S.2d 125,34 A.D.2d 661
• Parties: In the Matter of Jeanette P. (Anonymous), a Person Alleged to be in Need of Supervision, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 13 April 1970
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Page 125

310 N.Y.S.2d 125

34 A.D.2d 661

In the Matter of Jeanette P. (Anonymous), a Person Alleged

to be in Need of Supervision, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

April 13, 1970.

Charles Schinitsky, Brooklyn, Law Guardian, for appellant; Wendy Lauring, Brooklyn, of counsel.

J. Lee Rankin, Corp. Counsel, New York City, for respondent; Stanley Buchsbaum, Brooklyn, Leonard Koerner, New York City, of counsel.

Before CHRIST, Acting P.J., and LATHAM, KLEINFELD, BRENNAN and BENJAMIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a proceeding under article 7 of the Family Court Act in which appellant has been adjudged to be in need of supervision and placed on probation for one year by order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated October 15, 1969, the appeal is from a further order of said court dated March 5, 1970 which revoked the direction for probation and ordered appellant placed in the New York State Training School for 18 months.

Order modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, (1) by striking therefrom the decretal paragraph which orders appellant placed at the New York Training School for 18 months and (2) by substituting therefor a direction that appellant is remanded to the care and custody of the Commissioner of Social Services for placement in a suitable environment (Family Court Act, § 756, subd. (a)). As so modified, order affirmed, without costs.

In our opinion the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in ordering the placement of appellant in the New York State Training School, in view of the unchallenged report of Dr. Rodriguez which stated that placement in state training schools would be 'a poor choice and possibly a risk.' We appreciate the dilemma in which the Family Court found itself in the instant case. This case points up again the increasingly urgent need for proper facilities to provide adequate supervision and treatment for infants found to be persons 'in need of supervision' pursuant to subdivision (b) of section 712 of the Family Court Act (see Matter of Lloyd, 33 A.D.2d 385, 308 N.Y.S.2d 419 (1st Dept., dec. Mar. 10, 1970)).

Although placement in state training schools has been permanently authorized as a proper disposition under the Family Court Act of persons found to be in need of supervision (L.1968, ch. 874), 'the legislature has long recognized that the state training schools are hardly a beneficial haven for young people in need of supervision and such disposition was first interdicted (see Second Report of the Joint Legislative Committee, McKinney's Sess. Laws 1962, 3435) and then allowed as a stopgap measure for three years (L.1964, ch. 518; L.1965, ch. 126; L. 1966, ch. 705) until it was finally made permanent' (Matter of Lloyd, 33 A.D.2d 385, 308 N.Y.S.2d 419, Supra (1st Dept., dec. Mar. 10, 1970)).

'The...