New York Law Review

Tag: Persons In Need of Supervision

  • In re Lavette M., 35 N.Y.2d 136 (1974): Permissibility of Placing PINS Children in State Training Schools

    In re Lavette M., 35 N.Y.2d 136 (1974)

    Placement of a Person In Need of Supervision (PINS) in a state training school is not unlawful per se, provided that the facility offers adequate supervision and treatment tailored to the child’s individual needs, and is not merely custodial care.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether a child adjudicated as a Person In Need of Supervision (PINS) can be placed in a state training school. The New York Court of Appeals held that such placements are not inherently unlawful, provided that the training school offers bona fide and adequate treatment programs suited to the child’s needs. The court emphasized that the key is the quality of supervision and treatment, not simply the label of the facility. The court also acknowledged the limitations on judicial power to determine the adequacy of treatment, noting that courts should assure the presence of a bona fide treatment program rather than determine the “best possible treatment.”

    Facts

    Lavette M., a 13-year-old, was adjudicated a PINS for absenting herself from home. Initial probation and placement attempts failed. A psychologist recommended a highly structured setting, while a psychiatrist suggested a group home. The Family Court ordered her placement in a state training school after previous placements were unsuccessful. Maurice O., also 13, was adjudicated a PINS for running away from foster homes. He had a history of absconding, including an attempt to leave the state with a forged ticket. Psychiatric reports recommended a secure setting. The Family Court ordered his placement in a state training school due to his history of running away from private facilities.

    Procedural History

    In Lavette M.’s case, the Family Court ordered placement in a state training school, which was affirmed by the Appellate Division. In Maurice O.’s case, the Family Court ordered placement in a state training school, but the Appellate Division reversed and remitted the matter for placement in a “suitable environment.” The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal in Maurice O.’s case, certifying the question of whether the Appellate Division’s order was properly made.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the placement of a PINS child in a state training school is unlawful per se.

    Holding

    1. No, because the critical factor is the adequacy of the supervision and treatment provided, not merely the designation of the facility as a training school. As long as the training school provides a bona fide and adequate treatment program, placement of a PINS child is permissible.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals clarified its prior holding in Matter of Ellery C., stating that the prohibition was against confining PINS children in a “prison atmosphere” with juvenile delinquents, not placement in a training school per se. The court emphasized the importance of “individualized treatment and not mere custodial care.” The court acknowledged the preference for community-based treatment options but recognized that training schools could be appropriate if they provide adequate treatment. The court noted the Division for Youth’s efforts to upgrade training schools and implement the PINS child’s right to necessary care and treatment, including coeducational environments, counseling, therapy, and educational programs. While acknowledging the practical limitations on judicial power to assess the effectiveness of treatment, the court stated that its role is to ensure “a bona fide treatment program.” The court held that failure to provide suitable treatment cannot be justified by lack of staff or facilities, and that initial diagnosis and periodic assessment are required. The court stated, “There must be a bona fide effort to adequately treat the child in need of supervision in the light of present knowledge.”

  • In re Ellery C., 32 N.Y.2d 588 (1973): Confinement of Persons in Need of Supervision

    In re Ellery C., 32 N.Y.2d 588 (1973)

    A child adjudicated as a Person in Need of Supervision (PINS) cannot be confined in a state training school alongside juvenile delinquents.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether a child adjudicated a Person in Need of Supervision (PINS) can be confined in a state training school alongside juvenile delinquents. The New York Court of Appeals held that it is improper to confine a PINS child in an institution where juvenile delinquents are confined because the PINS statute was created to distinguish between children who commit criminal acts and those who merely misbehave. The court emphasized that confinement with juvenile delinquents does not constitute appropriate supervision or treatment for a PINS child and may lead to further criminal behavior.

    Facts

    Ellery C., a 16-year-old, was adjudicated a Person in Need of Supervision (PINS) based on his mother’s application. After about a year, the Family Court, acting on the Probation Department’s recommendation, sent him to the New York State Training School at Otisville. Attempts to place Ellery elsewhere had been unsuccessful. The training school housed both PINS children and juvenile delinquents.

    Procedural History

    The Family Court (Kings County) ordered Ellery C. to be sent to the New York State Training School at Otisville. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s disposition by a divided vote.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a child adjudicated as a Person in Need of Supervision (PINS) can be confined in a state training school alongside juveniles convicted of committing criminal acts.

    Holding

    No, because confining a PINS child with juvenile delinquents is inconsistent with the purpose of the PINS statute, which aims to provide supervision and treatment, not punitive confinement in a prison-like environment.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the PINS statute (L. 1962, ch. 686) was enacted to distinguish between juvenile delinquents (who commit criminal acts) and PINS children (who merely misbehave in ways that would not be objectionable if the actor were not a minor). The court emphasized that the Family Court Act differentiates between dispositional hearings for delinquency cases (involving supervision, treatment, or confinement) and PINS cases (involving supervision or treatment). The omission of “confinement” for PINS children was intentional. The court quoted the dissenting opinion below, stating that confinement with adjudicated juvenile delinquents in a prison environment “can hardly, in any realistic sense, serve as ‘supervision’ and ‘treatment’ for him. On the contrary, it may well result in his emerging from his incarceration well tutored in the ways of crime.” The court rejected the argument that the training school was the only available facility, stating that even if true, it would not justify confining a PINS child with juvenile delinquents. The court noted that proper facilities must be made available to provide adequate supervision and treatment for PINS children. The court also distinguished Matter of Tomasita N., 30 N.Y.2d 927, stating that the court elected not to address the propriety of placing the youngster in a training school because she had already been released prior to the decision.