Tonight's weird but true case involves the tragic story of Dawn Ward. In 2000, Dawn contacted an adoption agency and asked to adopt a special needs child. In 2001, the agency gave her Jeffrey, a child suffering from mild cerebral palsy. The agency informed Ward that Jeffrey's mother had not habitually used drugs and alcohol during her pregnancy, and that Jeffrey was a "quiet, gentle and pleasant child." Since Jeffrey was adopted in New Jersey, Dawn was eligible to (and did) receive a $1000 per month subsidy as adoption assistance. This continued even after Dawn moved to New York.
By October 2002, Jeffrey's behavior had deteriorated. He regressed in toileting, dressing and eating. His behavior at daycare included head-banging, hitting and kicking other children and throwing chairs and objects. In February 2003, he was diagnosed with pervasive developmental disorder. Jeffrey's play therapist advised Dawn that Jeffrey had significant neurological issues resulting from exposure to drugs and alcohol in utero.
Jeffrey's behavior did not improve. He injured both himself and Dawn during the summer of 2003, and had frequent bouts of uncontrollable behavior. In August 2003, Jeffrey was admitted to a private residential treatment facility, for psychological evaluations. The results were inconclusive. Dawn was advised that Jeffrey would be discharged on September 2, 2003.
On September 2, 2003, Dawn went to the Greene County Department of Social Services (GCDSS) and asked for a temporary relinquishment of parental rights. When GCDSS refused to accept a temporary relinquishment, Dawn decided that returning Jeffrey to her home would pose too great a risk to his and her safety, and permanently surrendered her parental rights before a Greene County Family Court judge. She subsequently relinquished the monthly subsidy she had been receiving from the State of New Jersey.
As is unfortunately common in these cases, after Dawn surrendered her rights, GCDSS pursued her for payment of part of Jeffrey's care. They obtained an order charging Dawn with "$133.54 weekly child support for Jeffrey commencing February 4, 2005 and $10,015.50 arrears from September 2, 2003 through January 28, 2005 to be paid in $10 weekly increments.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Court affirmed the order of support and refused the request to equitably estop GCDSS from pursuing Dawn. In a poignant concurring opinion, Chief Judge Kaye took GCDSS to task for failing to advise Dawn that she would have to pay for the costs of Jeffrey's care if she relinquished him. Indeed, Dawn stated that had she been made aware of this she would have attempted to have the $1000 monthly New Jersey subsidy transferred to GCDSS. Additionally, Judge Kaye noted that the GCDSS apparently did not refer Dawn to any of the mandatory preventive services for which Jeffrey was qualified.
Still, the Court affirmed the decision requiring Dawn to provide support payments to the GCDSS. In so doing, Judge Kaye stated:
"In sum, I conclude on this limited record that GCDSS did not provide Ms. Ward with the notifications and access to support services she needed to make an informed decision. Although this omission was mentioned generally, Ms. Ward did not rely on any of the specific regulatory sections discussed above—so that the agency might have offered a response—nor did she challenge the surrender proceeding itself. We therefore cannot determine whether any such violations may have invalidated her relinquishment of parental rights to Jeffrey or entitled her to some other remedy. Moreover, we are unable to grant Ms. Ward the only remedy she does request—that the agency be estopped from enforcing its support order. The doctrine of estoppel against a governmental entity is limited to "all but the rarest cases" (Matter of Parkview Assoc. v City of New York, 71 NY2d 274, 282 [1988]), circumstances not present here.
This tragic situation should never recur."
You can see the decision here:
By October 2002, Jeffrey's behavior had deteriorated. He regressed in toileting, dressing and eating. His behavior at daycare included head-banging, hitting and kicking other children and throwing chairs and objects. In February 2003, he was diagnosed with pervasive developmental disorder. Jeffrey's play therapist advised Dawn that Jeffrey had significant neurological issues resulting from exposure to drugs and alcohol in utero.
Jeffrey's behavior did not improve. He injured both himself and Dawn during the summer of 2003, and had frequent bouts of uncontrollable behavior. In August 2003, Jeffrey was admitted to a private residential treatment facility, for psychological evaluations. The results were inconclusive. Dawn was advised that Jeffrey would be discharged on September 2, 2003.
On September 2, 2003, Dawn went to the Greene County Department of Social Services (GCDSS) and asked for a temporary relinquishment of parental rights. When GCDSS refused to accept a temporary relinquishment, Dawn decided that returning Jeffrey to her home would pose too great a risk to his and her safety, and permanently surrendered her parental rights before a Greene County Family Court judge. She subsequently relinquished the monthly subsidy she had been receiving from the State of New Jersey.
As is unfortunately common in these cases, after Dawn surrendered her rights, GCDSS pursued her for payment of part of Jeffrey's care. They obtained an order charging Dawn with "$133.54 weekly child support for Jeffrey commencing February 4, 2005 and $10,015.50 arrears from September 2, 2003 through January 28, 2005 to be paid in $10 weekly increments.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Court affirmed the order of support and refused the request to equitably estop GCDSS from pursuing Dawn. In a poignant concurring opinion, Chief Judge Kaye took GCDSS to task for failing to advise Dawn that she would have to pay for the costs of Jeffrey's care if she relinquished him. Indeed, Dawn stated that had she been made aware of this she would have attempted to have the $1000 monthly New Jersey subsidy transferred to GCDSS. Additionally, Judge Kaye noted that the GCDSS apparently did not refer Dawn to any of the mandatory preventive services for which Jeffrey was qualified.
Still, the Court affirmed the decision requiring Dawn to provide support payments to the GCDSS. In so doing, Judge Kaye stated:
"In sum, I conclude on this limited record that GCDSS did not provide Ms. Ward with the notifications and access to support services she needed to make an informed decision. Although this omission was mentioned generally, Ms. Ward did not rely on any of the specific regulatory sections discussed above—so that the agency might have offered a response—nor did she challenge the surrender proceeding itself. We therefore cannot determine whether any such violations may have invalidated her relinquishment of parental rights to Jeffrey or entitled her to some other remedy. Moreover, we are unable to grant Ms. Ward the only remedy she does request—that the agency be estopped from enforcing its support order. The doctrine of estoppel against a governmental entity is limited to "all but the rarest cases" (Matter of Parkview Assoc. v City of New York, 71 NY2d 274, 282 [1988]), circumstances not present here.
This tragic situation should never recur."
You can see the decision here:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_05131.htm .
If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!
If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!
1 comment:
Interesting post... and you ought to change that number in your profile about now...
Post a Comment