|
FILE NO.,COURT, AND DATE FILED
25l68/85 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. City, filed Oct. 28, l985); 28792 and 28793 (N.Y. App. Div., filed July 9, l987); 349 (N.Y. Ct. App., Dec. 20, l988)
CITATIONS
130 A.D.2d l54 (lst Dept. l987), aff'd, 73 N.Y.2d 820; 509 N.Y.S.2d 685 (l986); 5l8 N.Y.S.2d l05 (l987)
CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW NO.
None
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Mary Brosnahan Sullivan
Coalition for the Homeless
129 Fulton Street
New York, NY 10038
(212) 776-2076
Fax: (212) 964-1303
www.coalitionforthehomeless.org
Tamara Steckler
Juvenile Rights Division
Legal Aid Society of New York City
199 Water Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10038
(212) 577-3300
Fax: (212) 577-3520
www.legal-aid.org
ISSUES
In this class action suit, plaintiffs sought (1) improved protective and preventive services for families of children at risk of foster placement due to actual or threatened homelessness; (2) housing assistance as a preventive service for families; and (3) a full range of protective services other than housing-related services. The lawsuit included claims based upon the New York Child Welfare Reform Act and the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, as well as the New York and U.S. Constitutions.
HISTORY AND STATUS
In May 1986, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction. The issue before the court was whether the Child Welfare Reform Act of 1979 and attendant state regulations mandate the provision of preventive services to families with children at risk of entering foster care. With respect to preventive services, the court found that New York law requires, for each child identified as being considered for placement in foster care, a child service plan that identifies the services required by the child, the availability of those services, and the manner in which they are to be provided. The court determined that this service plan is in the nature of a contract, enforceable by the court.
The New York appellate court, however, modified the lower court's order granting a preliminary injunction, holding that the legislature did not intend to impose on social service officials a nondiscretionary duty to provide preventive services in all cases of alleged abuse or maltreatment. The court also held that a child's service plan did not create an enforceable contract requiring the city to provide all available services listed in the plan. Accordingly, it overturned the lower court's declaratory system-wide relief with regard to preventive services. The appellate court did, however, uphold injunctive relief against the City of New York for its failure to investigate reports of suspected child abuse within 24 hours as statutorily mandated.
In a memorandum opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division.
|
 | |
|
