In re Edward W., 42 A.D.2d 967 (1973)

A charge of harassment under Penal Law § 240.25, without additional evidence of habitual truancy or incorrigibility, cannot be the sole predicate for a juvenile delinquency proceeding or a finding that a child is a person in need of supervision (PINS).

Summary

This case clarifies the grounds for juvenile delinquency proceedings and PINS adjudications. The petition against the 11-year-old respondent alleged a single instance of harassment. The Court of Appeals held that this single charge was insufficient to support a finding of juvenile delinquency or that the respondent was a person in need of supervision. The court emphasized that a PINS determination requires evidence of habitual misbehavior, not just an isolated incident.

Facts

The 11-year-old respondent was the subject of a petition alleging a violation of harassment under Penal Law § 240.25. The petition did not allege facts supporting a charge of assault or any other crime that could serve as a basis for a juvenile delinquency finding. The only evidence presented at the hearing related to the single incident of alleged harassment.

Procedural History

The Family Court found the respondent to be “a person in need of supervision.” The Appellate Division reversed this determination, holding that the evidence was insufficient to meet the statutory requirements for a PINS finding. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether a single charge of harassment, without evidence of habitual truancy, incorrigibility, or ungovernability, is sufficient to support a finding that a child is a person in need of supervision.

Holding

No, because a finding of being a person in need of supervision requires proof of habitual misbehavior, not merely a single, isolated incident of harassment.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that while the facts might have suggested an assault (if committed by an adult), the petition only charged harassment. A harassment charge, by itself, cannot be the basis for a juvenile delinquency proceeding. Furthermore, the court emphasized that a PINS determination requires more than a single act of misbehavior. Quoting the Appellate Division, the court stated that the proof must show that the boy is “‘an habitual truant or who is incorrigible, ungovernable or habitually disobedient and beyond the lawful control of parent or other lawful authority.’ The record is silent on any misbehavior other than this single act of ‘harassment.’ * * * there must be more than a single isolated incident to support a determination of ‘need of supervision.’” The court focused on the statutory requirements for PINS adjudications, emphasizing the need for evidence of a pattern of misbehavior demonstrating a lack of parental control. This case highlights the importance of properly pleading and proving the elements necessary for a PINS finding. It prevents the use of a single, minor infraction to justify state intervention in family matters, requiring a more substantial showing of ongoing issues.