CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State ex rel. Dunn v. Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children

Maureen M. Dunn filed a writ of habeas corpus to regain custody of "Baby Girl" Dunn, born April 6, 1986, after executing a surrender for adoption to Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children (CHB) on May 1, 1986. The child was placed with prospective adoptive parents, John and Mary Doe, on April 10, 1986. Dunn attempted to revoke her surrender on May 21, 1986, within the 30-day period stipulated by Social Services Law § 384(5). The adoptive parents moved to dismiss or transfer the case, arguing against Supreme Court jurisdiction. The court retained jurisdiction and, following hearings, addressed Dunn's claims of fraud, duress, or coercion in the surrender's execution, which it ultimately denied despite concerns about CHB's procedures and a witness's credibility. The court also clarified the application of Social Services Law §§ 383(6) and 384(5) regarding the natural mother's rights post-surrender, ruling that Dunn lost her presumption of superiority once the child was placed in an adoptive home, requiring the custody determination to be based solely on the child's best interests. Considering the stability, financial security, and family ties of the adoptive parents versus the natural mother's temporary employment, uncertain support from the natural father, and past substance use during pregnancy, the court found it in the child's best interest to remain with the adoptive parents and be adopted by them.

AdoptionChild CustodyHabeas CorpusSurrender of Parental RightsBest Interests of the ChildParental RightsSocial Services LawRevocation of SurrenderFraudDuress
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1976

In re Louis F.

This proceeding was initiated by foster parents under Social Services Law section 392 to review the foster care status of the child Louis F., aiming to free him for adoption. Respondents, the Department of Social Services, Catholic Home Bureau, and the natural mother, sought to continue foster care, with the agency planning for the child's discharge to the natural mother. The foster parents moved for prehearing disclosure of various records related to the child and his natural parents, which the Family Court denied for lack of sufficient necessity. The Appellate Division affirmed this denial. The court reiterated that while foster parents, as parties in a foster care review, may obtain disclosure upon a proper showing of necessity coupled with in camera viewing by the Family Court, in this instance, after its own appellate in camera review, it found no abuse of discretion in the Family Court's decision.

Foster CareChild WelfareSocial Services LawDisclosureIn Camera InspectionFamily CourtAppellate ReviewBest Interest of the ChildParental RightsAdoption Proceedings
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re B.H. Children

This case addresses the Family Court's authority to issue an order of protection on behalf of foster care agency employees in a child protective proceeding. MercyFirst, a foster care agency, sought an order of protection against a respondent father to safeguard its caseworkers, L.S. and S.H., from alleged threats and harassment. Presiding Judge Emily M. Olshansky ruled that the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant such an order, as New York statutes do not explicitly extend protection to foster care agency employees in this context. Consequently, the agency's motion for an order of protection was denied, and a subsequent motion for contempt related to a temporary order, which the court found void due to lack of jurisdiction, was also denied.

Family Court JurisdictionOrder of Protection AuthorityChild Protective ServicesFoster Care Worker SafetyStatutory Interpretation New YorkContempt of Court GroundsLimited Jurisdiction CourtsLegal StandingAgency Employees RightsJudicial Review of Statutes
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dixey v. Jewish Child Care Ass'n

Plaintiff brought an action against the Jewish Child Care Association (JCCA) and Hillary Volper under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging negligence and efforts to destroy her parent-child relationship, leading to the loss of her child's physical custody. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate 'deliberate indifference' on the part of the defendants or establish a causal link between the alleged state law violations and the child's continued foster care, noting the plaintiff's repeated consent to foster placement. The court also determined that specific affirmative actions by the defendants, such as advising on housing or temporarily severing visitation, did not constitute a constitutional violation or a substantial factor in the child remaining in foster care. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, also dismissing the pendent state claims.

42 U.S.C. § 1983Constitutional RightsParental RightsFamily IntegrityFoster CareSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissDeliberate IndifferenceCausationState Law Violation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Racha v. Vernon Racha/Vern's Truck & Diesel Service

The Workers' Compensation Board initially denied a claim for death benefits to a posthumous out-of-wedlock child, arguing a lack of dependency evidence. The appellate court reversed this decision, asserting that while acknowledgment is no longer a statutory requirement for out-of-wedlock children, evidence of a deceased parent's acknowledgment is crucial for establishing dependency, especially when the child is born after the parent's death. The court found that the undisputed testimony of the decedent acknowledging the unborn child, coupled with his plans to marry the mother and provide housing, created a presumption of dependency. This presumption was further buttressed by the mother's subsequent inability to care for the child. The case was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with this court’s decision.

DependencyPosthumous ChildOut-of-wedlock childPaternityWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial AccidentDeath BenefitsAcknowledgmentPresumption of DependencyReversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Anonymous

This case concerns an adoption proceeding in Nassau County for a neurologically handicapped child. The petitioners, an approved adoptive family, sought to finalize the adoption. Former foster parents, the intervenors, challenged this, claiming a statutory preference for adoption due to their long-term care of the child. The court found that the intervenors had previously declined to adopt the child and failed to take affirmative steps to gain statutory preference while the child was in their care. The decision emphasized that intervention rights apply to current foster parents in custody disputes, and ultimately, the court prioritized the child's best interests by granting the petitioners' adoption application.

AdoptionFoster CareChild WelfareNeurological HandicapBest Interests of ChildInterventionStatutory PreferenceSocial Services LawAgency Discretion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Gunner T.

This case concerns a child neglect petition against Maria T. regarding her son, Gunner T., who was placed in the care of the Clinton County Department of Social Services. The Department issued a notice to remove Gunner from his current foster home and place him with his great-uncle. The Attorney for the Child subsequently filed a motion to modify the existing order, advocating for Gunner to remain in his current foster home, citing his best interests. The court, presided over by Timothy J. Lawliss, ruled that it indeed possesses the legal authority under the Family Court Act to direct the placement of a child in a specific foster home. A separate hearing will be scheduled to determine if the requested relief aligns with Gunner's best interests.

Child NeglectFoster Care PlacementBest Interest of ChildFamily Court ActJudicial AuthoritySpecific Foster Home PlacementMotion to Modify OrderDepartment of Social ServicesAttorney for the ChildRelative Placement Preference
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Archer W. v. Commissioner of Social Services

This case involves an appeal by intervener foster parents from Family Court orders regarding child custody. The child, born in 1987, was placed with foster parents after the natural mother admitted to cocaine use. The natural father, Archer W., subsequently instituted custody proceedings and was granted a final custody order. The foster parents' motion to intervene and reargue custody was granted, but the Family Court again awarded custody to the natural father, finding no evidence of unfitness or extraordinary circumstances. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the initial order and affirmed the final custody order from May 10, 1989. The court reiterated the principle that a natural parent has a superior claim to custody unless proved unfit or extraordinary circumstances exist, neither of which were demonstrated by the foster parents in this record.

Child CustodyFoster ParentsNatural FatherParental RightsUnfitnessAbandonmentNeglectExtraordinary CircumstancesBest Interests of ChildAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Harain Figueroa

The Family Court's order from May 11, 1984, which directed the immediate surrender of a three-year-old foster child, Ida Christina L., to the Commissioner of Social Services, was reversed on appeal. The appellate court found that the record was insufficiently developed to justify the child's immediate removal from foster parents, with whom she had lived almost since birth. While acknowledging some questionable responses from the foster parents and unconvincing explanations for their absence from a hearing, the court determined there was no adequate basis to conclude they would not comply with court directions. Furthermore, no other compelling reason for sudden removal was presented by the hearing minutes, which largely consisted of statements based on information and belief or disputed factual claims, necessitating further development. The appellate court refrained from prejudging the outcome of any ongoing or future hearings regarding the child's custodial arrangements.

Foster CareChild WelfareFamily LawChild RemovalAppellate ReviewDue ProcessSocial Services LawNew York CountyJudicial DiscretionHearing Procedures
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 1982

Landaverde v. Howie

The dissenting opinion by Justice Kassal, supported by Justice Milonas, addresses the affirmation of Family Court orders that returned a three-year-old child to his natural mother. The dissent argues that the "extraordinary circumstance" standard should apply, advocating for the child to remain with his foster parents, the Howies, who have cared for him since birth. Justice Kassal expresses concerns about the natural mother's potential deportation to El Salvador and the child's overall welfare. The dissent also counters the majority's views on the mother's financial situation, legal representation, and the significance of formal adoption versus existing loving parental care. Ultimately, the dissent concludes that the child's best interests dictate he remain with his foster parents, despite the court's affirmation of the original orders.

child custodyfoster parentsnatural motherparental rightsextraordinary circumstancesbest interests of the childdeportationimmigration statuslegal representationjudicial discretion
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,266 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational