Matter of Julius P., 481 N.Y.S.2d 326 (1984)
In proceedings to terminate parental rights based on abandonment, the social services agency has no affirmative duty to actively encourage contact between parent and child; its sole obligation is not to prevent or discourage such contact.
Summary
The Monroe County Department of Social Services sought to terminate a mother’s parental rights to her son, Julius P., based on abandonment. The Family Court dismissed the petition, arguing the Department had failed in its contractual obligation (per a voluntary placement instrument) to assist the mother in maintaining contact with her child. The Appellate Division reversed, finding overwhelming evidence of abandonment. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division, holding that the placement instrument did not impose a duty on the agency greater than its statutory obligation and that the mother’s failure to maintain contact constituted abandonment.
Facts
Julius P. was born on August 6, 1969. The mother entrusted him to her own mother’s care until 1980, when the grandmother became ill. The mother then executed a voluntary placement agreement with the Monroe County Department of Social Services, periodically extended by court order. The child was placed in a children’s home and later in a foster home. The mother visited him sporadically in the children’s home. The agency informed her of Julius’s transfer to a foster home, at which time she wanted him returned to her. Discussions and appointments regarding the return of the child were arranged but the mother did not keep them. Caseworkers visited her home twice in August 1981 but were unable to find her. The agency sent letters in September, one of which was returned indicating she had moved. They located her new address and sent another letter, which was not returned. A certified letter was sent in October 1981, but she denied receiving it. From August 1981 to February 1982 (when the termination proceeding began), the mother did not visit or communicate with her son or the agency.
Procedural History
The Monroe County Department of Social Services filed a petition in Family Court to terminate the mother’s parental rights based on abandonment. The Family Court dismissed the petition, finding the agency had a contractual duty to assist the mother in maintaining contact, which it failed to fulfill. The Appellate Division reversed, holding the evidence supported a finding of abandonment and that the placement instrument imposed no duty beyond the agency’s statutory obligations. The New York Court of Appeals granted review.
Issue(s)
Whether the voluntary placement instrument executed between the mother and the Department of Social Services imposed a duty on the Department, beyond its statutory obligations, to actively encourage contact between the mother and her child, such that failure to fulfill this duty would preclude a finding of abandonment.
Holding
No, because the language of the placement instrument, consistent with Social Services Law § 384-a, merely advises the parent of their rights and obligations and does not expand the agency’s duty beyond what is defined in Social Services Law § 384-b, subd. 5, which prohibits the agency from interfering with parental contact but does not require diligent efforts to encourage it.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that under Social Services Law § 384-b, a child is considered abandoned when a parent demonstrates an intent to forego parental rights, evidenced by a failure to visit or communicate with the child or agency, despite being able to do so and not being prevented or discouraged by the agency. The burden is on the parent to maintain contact, and the agency is not obligated to exercise diligent efforts to encourage contact, only to avoid preventing or discouraging it. The court found that the language of the voluntary placement instrument, advising the parent of their right to visit and the importance of doing so, was consistent with the requirements of Social Services Law § 384-a, which aims to ensure parents are aware of their rights and responsibilities. However, the court explicitly stated that “the language expresses the general statutory policy of fostering the parent-child relationship by means available to the agency but it does not impose an added duty upon it to encourage contact between parent and child.” The court reasoned that allowing such instruments to expand the agency’s duty beyond the statutory framework would undermine the clear intent of the legislature. The Court cited Matter of Anonymous (St. Christopher’s Home), 40 NY2d 96, 102-103, further reinforcing that agencies do not have expanded duties. The court noted that subjective good faith on the part of the parent does not prevent a finding of abandonment, reinforcing the parent’s responsibility to maintain contact.