In re Cecilia R., 36 N.Y.2d 317 (1975)
A juvenile has a right to be present at a dispositional hearing concerning their supervision or treatment unless they waive that right or are properly excluded for disruptive behavior.
Summary
This case addresses the right of a juvenile to be present at a dispositional hearing in Family Court. Cecilia R., a 13-year-old girl, was adjudicated a Person in Need of Supervision (PINS). During her dispositional hearing, the judge excluded her while testimony regarding numerous placement rejections was presented. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division, holding that Cecilia had a right to be present unless she waived that right knowingly or was properly excluded for disruptive behavior. The Court emphasized that the dispositional hearing is a critical stage, and the juvenile’s presence is vital to ensure a fair and accurate determination.
Facts
Cecilia R., a 13-year-old, was determined to be a Person in Need of Supervision (PINS). During the dispositional hearing, after an initial appearance, the Family Court Judge directed that Cecilia be removed from the courtroom during the testimony of a social worker. The social worker testified about the numerous rejections (23 in total) Cecilia had received from various placement agencies. Cecilia’s law guardian was present and did not object. Cecilia returned to the courtroom immediately after the social worker’s testimony. The Family Court then ordered her placement.
Procedural History
The Family Court, Kings County, ordered Cecilia’s placement after a dispositional hearing where she was excluded during part of the proceedings. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s order. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the matter to Family Court for further proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether a juvenile has a right to be present at a dispositional hearing in Family Court concerning their supervision or treatment?
Holding
Yes, because a juvenile has a right to be present at a dispositional hearing unless they waive that right knowingly and intelligently, or are properly excluded for disruptive behavior or other compelling reasons.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that the dispositional hearing is a critical stage of the proceedings, akin to sentencing in criminal court. The court reasoned that the juvenile’s presence is crucial to ensure a fair and accurate determination of the appropriate disposition. The Court emphasized that the juvenile has a right to be present and to participate in the hearing, including the right to confront witnesses and present evidence. The Court stated that “[t]he dispositional hearing is the most important stage of a PINS proceeding, since it determines what restrictions will be placed on the juvenile’s liberty.” The Court further noted that “[a]lthough a Family Court Judge has considerable discretion to exclude a juvenile from the courtroom for limited periods of time, this discretion is not unlimited.” The Court found no evidence that Cecilia had waived her right to be present or that she was disruptive. Therefore, her exclusion from the hearing was improper. The dissent argued that the judge had discretion to exclude Cecilia, particularly given the sensitive nature of the testimony regarding placement rejections, and that her law guardian’s failure to object indicated tacit approval. The dissent emphasized the futility of a new hearing, suggesting the outcome would be the same. However, the majority prioritized the juvenile’s right to be present and participate in the process absent a valid waiver or justifiable exclusion.