Pratt v. Pratt
| Decision Date | 11 January 1979 |
| Citation | 412 N.Y.S.2d 450,67 A.D.2d 771 |
| Parties | In the Matter of George PRATT, Respondent, v. Christine PRATT, Respondent, and St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ethan K. Phillips, Canton, for appellant.
A. Michael Gebo, Ogdensburg, Law Guardian for Pratt Children, respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P. J., and GREENBLOTT, SWEENEY, KANE and STALEY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County, entered May 29, 1978, which provided that the release of custody of the children to the mother shall be under the supervision of the St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services for an initial period of one year, and directed the Department to petition the court in the 11th month of supervision for a continuation or termination of supervision as the Department shall deem appropriate.
A judgment of divorce was entered in the office of the Clerk of the County of St. Lawrence on March 29, 1976, dissolving the marriage of Christine Pratt and George Pratt. The judgment provided that Christine Pratt should have custody of their six infant children, and that the Family Court have concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of any matters of custody, visitation and support.
On February 21, 1978, George Pratt filed a custody petition requesting custody of the children. On May 16, 1978, the issues were resolved by a stipulation entered on the record. An order based upon the stipulation was entered on May 29, 1978 which provided that all of the children would continue in the custody of the mother, Christine Pratt, except Vincent, who was placed in the custody of the father George Pratt.
The order further provided that the release of custody to the mother be under the supervision of the St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services for an initial period of one year, and directing the Department to petition the court in the 11th month of supervision for a continuation or termination of supervision as the Department, in its opinion, shall deem appropriate.
The Department of Social Services was not a party to the proceeding and appeals from that part of the order which provides for supervision by the Department. George Pratt and Christine Pratt do not oppose this appeal, opposition being by the Law Guardian appointed to protect the interests of the children.
The first question raised is whether the Department of Social Services has the right to bring this appeal since it was not a party to the proceeding in Family Court. Any person aggrieved may appeal even where they are not a party to the Family Court proceeding (Matter of Currier v. Honig, 50 A.D.2d 632, 374 N.Y.S.2d 758). The Department, having been ordered to perform an act which it contends the court had no authority to compel it to do, is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lavar C., Matter of
...to appeals under article 11 of the Family Court Act. An aggrieved party may include a party to the order (see, Pratt v. Pratt, 67 A.D.2d 771, 412 N.Y.S.2d 450, lv. denied, 47 N.Y.2d 711, 420 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 394 N.E.2d 293; see also, Montpelier v. Montpelier, 83 A.D.2d 683, 442 N.Y.S.2d 248; ......
-
Crystal H., Matter of
...custody the child is released under supervision of a child protective agency for up to eighteen months. (See Pratt v. Pratt, 67 A.D.2d 771, 412 N.Y.S.2d 450 (3rd Dept., 1979). That section 1054 is applicable to nonrespondents becomes clear when it is read in conjunction with F.C.A. § 1057 w......
-
Montpelier v. Montpelier
...for a period of one year. The department properly brought this appeal as a nonparty aggrieved by the order (Matter of Pratt v. Pratt, 67 A.D.2d 771, 412 N.Y.S.2d 450; Matter of Currier v. Honig, 50 A.D.2d 632, 374 N.Y.S.2d 758; see Family Ct. Act, § 156), contending that there was no statut......
- George P. v. Christine P.