Sloma v. Saya

• Decision Date: 18 November 2022
• Docket Number: 748 CAF 21-01162
• Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 06587
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF ERIC M. SLOMA, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. MICHELE A. SAYA, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2022 NY Slip Op 06587

IN THE MATTER OF ERIC M. SLOMA, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. MICHELE A. SAYA, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

No. 748 CAF 21-01162

Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

November 18, 2022

SUSAN B. MARRIS, ESQ., ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, APPELLANT.

SUSAN B. MARRIS, MANLIUS, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, APPELLANT PRO SE.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND NEMOYER, JJ.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Robert E Antonacci, II, J.), entered July 9, 2021 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, insofar as appealed from, dismissed the petition for a modification of custody.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to Family Court Onondaga County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the Attorney for the Child (AFC) as limited by her brief, appeals from an order insofar as it dismissed petitioner father's petition seeking to modify the parties' custody arrangement. Family Court determined at the conclusion of the father's presentation of evidence at a trial that he failed to establish a change in circumstances and granted respondent mother's motion to dismiss the father's petition. Initially, we agree with the AFC that, under the circumstances of this case, she has standing to appeal the order (see Matter of Newton v McFarlane, 174 A.D.3d 67, 71-74 [2d Dept 2019]; cf. Matter of Lawrence v Lawrence, 151 A.D.3d 1879, 1879 [4th Dept 2017]; Matter of Kessler v Fancher, 112 A.D.3d 1323, 1323 [4th Dept 2013]).

We agree with the AFC that the child received ineffective assistance of counsel. We therefore reverse the order insofar as appealed from, reinstate the petition, and remit the matter to Family Court for a new trial. Section 7.2 of the Rules of the Chief Judge provides that, in proceedings such as an article 6 custody proceeding where the child is the subject and an AFC has been appointed pursuant to Family Court Act § 249, the AFC "must zealously advocate the child's position" (22 NYCRR 7.2 [d]). "[I]n ascertaining the child's position, the [AFC] must consult with and advise the child to the extent of and in a manner consistent with the child's capacities, and have a thorough knowledge of the child's circumstances" (22 NYCRR 7.2[d] [1]). "[I]f the child is capable of knowing, voluntary and considered judgment, the [AFC] should be directed by the wishes of the child, even if the [AFC] believes that what the child wants is not in the child's best interests" (22 NYCRR 7.2[d] [2]). There are two exceptions, not relevant here, where the child lacks the capacity for knowing, voluntary and considered judgment, or following the child's wishes is likely to result in a substantial risk of imminent, serious harm to the child (see 22 NYCRR 7.2[d] [3]). In those instances, the AFC is justified in advocating for a position that is contrary to the child's wishes (see id.).

Moreover a child in an article 6 custody proceeding is entitled to effective assistance of counsel (see Matter of Rivera v Fowler, 112 A.D.3d 835, 837 [2d Dept 2013]; Matter of Sharyn PP. v Richard QQ., 83 A.D.3d 1140, 1143 [3d Dept 2011]; Matter of Ferguson v Skelly, 80 A.D.3d 903, 906 [3d Dept 2011], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 710 [2011]), which requires the AFC to take an active role in the proceeding (see Matter of Payne v Montano, 166 A.D.3d 1342, 1343-1345 [3d Dept 2018]; Rivera, 112 A.D.3d at 837).

Here the AFC at trial made his client's wish that there be a change in custody known to the court, but he did not "zealously advocate the child's position" (22 NYCRR 7.2 [d]; see Payne, 166 A.D.3d at 1345; see also Matter of Brian S. [Tanya S.], 141 A.D.3d 1145, 1147 [4th Dept 2016]). He did not cross-examine the mother, the police officers, or the school social worker called by the father, and we agree with the AFC on appeal that the trial AFC's cross-examination of the father was designed to elicit unfavorable testimony related to the father, thus undermining the child's position (see Silverman v Silverman, 186 A.D.3d 123, 127-128 [2d Dept 2...