Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368 (1984)
When a child-care agency seeks to terminate parental rights based on permanent neglect, it must first affirmatively plead and prove by clear and convincing evidence that it diligently attempted to strengthen the parent-child relationship.
Summary
This case addresses the paramount duty of child-care agencies in New York to actively work towards reuniting parents with their children before seeking to terminate parental rights based on permanent neglect. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the Brookwood Child Care Agency failed to demonstrate diligent efforts to foster a relationship between the father, Dennis H., and his daughter, Sheila G. The court emphasized that the agency’s indifference to the father’s rights and its failure to provide meaningful assistance precluded a finding of permanent neglect, highlighting the State’s obligation to help families stay together.
Facts
Sheila G. was born out of wedlock in 1977 and placed in the care of the Brookwood Child Care Agency shortly after birth. The father, Dennis H., contacted Brookwood, acknowledged paternity, and expressed his desire to visit and support Sheila. Brookwood informed him that the mother had refused to permit him access. Over the next year, Dennis regularly contacted Brookwood, inquiring about Sheila and reporting his efforts to establish paternity, which were hindered by the mother’s non-cooperation. Brookwood focused on the mother and later decided to seek Sheila’s surrender for adoption. Sheila was placed with foster parents who were informed she would be available for adoption within six months. Dennis eventually established paternity in 1979 and proposed plans for Sheila’s custody. Brookwood then initiated proceedings to terminate parental rights.
Procedural History
Brookwood filed a petition in Family Court to terminate the parental rights of both parents based on permanent neglect. The Family Court found the mother had permanently neglected Sheila, a determination not appealed. The Family Court dismissed the petition against the father, finding Brookwood failed to make diligent efforts to unite Sheila and Dennis. The Appellate Division reversed, holding Sheila was permanently neglected by both parents and terminating Dennis’s visitation rights. Dennis appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether Brookwood Child Care Agency exercised diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship between Dennis H. and Sheila G. prior to initiating proceedings to terminate Dennis’s parental rights based on permanent neglect.
Holding
No, because Brookwood failed to demonstrate that it made reasonable attempts to assist, develop, and encourage a meaningful relationship between Dennis and Sheila. The agency’s indifference to Dennis’s rights and its failure to provide meaningful assistance precluded a finding of permanent neglect.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that when a child-care agency seeks to terminate parental rights based on permanent neglect, the agency must first demonstrate that it has made diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship. Citing Social Services Law § 384-b(7)(a), the Court stated that a “permanently neglected child” is one whose parent has failed to maintain contact or plan for the child’s future, “notwithstanding the agency’s diligent efforts.” The Court highlighted the agency’s superior position and the potential for agency indifference to impede reunification attempts. The Court relied on legislative intent, underscoring that “the state’s first obligation is to help the family with services to prevent its break-up or to reunite it if the child has already left home.” The Court found that Brookwood’s efforts were inadequate, citing a lack of consultation with Dennis in developing a service plan, a failure to assist him in gaining custody, and scheduling visitation at inconvenient times. The Court emphasized that “proof by the child-care agency that it has satisfied its statutory obligation is a threshold consideration and a necessary prerequisite to any determination of permanent neglect.” The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the matter to Family Court for a custody determination based on Sheila’s best interests, while underscoring Dennis’s right to meaningful assistance in gaining custody, if custody with the foster parents was continued. The Court concluded: “Once a child has been voluntarily placed with an authorized child-care agency, and is under foster care, the Family Court is vested with continuing jurisdiction over the child until there has been a final disposition of custody.”