Matter of Star A., 59 N.Y.2d 565 (1983)

When a parent’s mental health is a barrier to reunification with their children, a child welfare agency’s duty to make diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship may include directing the parent toward appropriate psychiatric treatment.

Summary

This case concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights due to permanent neglect. The New York Court of Appeals held that a child welfare agency might have a duty to direct a parent toward psychiatric treatment as part of its diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship, especially when mental illness is a barrier to reunification. The Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, finding the agency failed to fulfill its statutory duty because it did not adequately assist the mother in obtaining appropriate psychiatric care. The agency could not excuse its inaction by claiming that such efforts would have been futile.

Facts

The respondent, a mother of two, was found wandering the streets of New York City with her children in 1972 and was hospitalized. The Bureau of Child Welfare assumed care of the children, who were eventually placed with Talbot Perkins Children’s Services. The agency knew the mother suffered from mental illness and was briefly hospitalized in 1975. The mother moved to New Jersey and received some independent psychiatric care. The agency made some attempts to keep informed of the mother’s treatment but did little to actively direct her towards appropriate psychiatric care or assist with her treatment plan.

Procedural History

The Family Court dismissed the petition to terminate the mother’s custody and guardianship rights, finding that the agency failed to make diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship, despite the mother’s failure to plan for the children’s future. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether a child welfare agency’s duty to make diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship includes directing the parent toward psychiatric treatment when the parent suffers from mental illness that hinders reunification.

Holding

Yes, because the statutory language requiring diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship may encompass a duty on the part of the agency to direct the natural parent toward psychiatric treatment designed to remedy the obstacles barring family reunification. This duty is activated and fulfilled based on the specific facts of each case.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of the agency’s duty to make diligent efforts to foster the parental relationship, citing the cultural judgment that society should try to strengthen the relationship before terminating it. The Court stated that “diligent efforts” includes consultation and cooperation with the parent and providing services to resolve or ameliorate problems preventing the child’s discharge from care. The Court rejected the agency’s argument that its failure to secure appropriate psychiatric care for the respondent should be excused because any efforts would have been futile. The Court noted the agency’s “ ‘neglect in fulfilling its express statutory duty cannot be excused or justified because it would have been difficult or burdensome for it to undertake [diligent] efforts due to [respondent’s] predicaments’ ”. The court found no acceptable evidence that the mother received appropriate psychiatric care for the goal of family reunification from independent sources. Because the lower courts made affirmed findings of fact that the legislative standard of “diligent efforts” was not met, the Court of Appeals deferred to that finding.