|
Family Court Updates
Court of Appeals Unequivocally Says No to “Host Family Homes”
As reported in The Imprint Youth and Family News, “[i]n a sweeping rebuttal to New York’s child welfare agency, the state’s highest court has permanently blocked a program allowing volunteers to temporarily ‘host' children from struggling families — an arrangement that bypasses the courts that oversee the formal foster care system.”
The unanimous decision issued on May 21, 2026, closes the chapter on a protracted legal battle that goes back to the beginning of COVID, on the propriety of OCFS creating a program that bypasses the voluntary foster care system (aka voluntary placements).
Many, including NYSDA, have argued that the Host Family Homes program is nothing more than a shadow or backdoor foster care system designed to take children away from their parents without any court protections, and in Matter of Lawyers v New York State Office of Children and Family Services, the Court of Appeals agreed. The decision reads in part, “Respondents [OCFS] created the Host Family Home program to offer parents an alternative means of temporarily placing out their children in times of difficulty. The governing law does not permit them to do so. None of the statutes respondents invoke authorize OCFS to promulgate this program through regulation or indicate that the legislature shared OCFS’s policy preference for the placement of children in Host Homes rather than in foster care.” NYSDA’s March 2020 comments opposing the regulation can be found here.
New York Finally Moves to Reduce Child Support Enforcement Against Parents with Children in Foster Care
Since a 1984 change in federal law, states have collected child support payments from many parents whose children are placed in foster care, despite research showing that the practice dramatically reduces the pace and likelihood of family reunification. Data shows that despite a 12.3% reduction in child support collections from New York parents with children in foster care between 2016 and 2024, the state of New York still collected over two million dollars in child support from this population in 2024.
In July of 2022, the federal Administration for Children and Families (ACF) directed state agencies to develop and implement new policies where the default position is to not refer parents for child support enforcement. ACF highlighted the low yield of child support collection efforts, coupled with their negative impact on families’ economic stability and reunification timelines. New York State’s Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) finally responded to this federal directive on April 1, 2026, issuing a new policy urging local departments of social services to cease most referrals of parents for child support enforcement. The OCFS policy requires local agencies to immediately eliminate the practice of automatic referrals to child support enforcement and consider the unique circumstances of each family. OCFS urges local agencies to use a child support referral checklist that would automatically exclude most parents with children in foster care from child support enforcement.
Anti-Harassment in Reporting Act Goes into Full Effect on June 17
The Anti-Harassment in Reporting Act’s most impactful provisions go into effect on June 17, 2026. Parent and community advocates celebrated a major win when the bill was signed into law in December 2025. The Act prohibits anonymous reporting to the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment. Starting in mid-June, callers must provide their name and contact information for their report to be transmitted to the local department of social services, unless the central register reasonably believes the caller is a child under 18. See Social Services Law 422(2)(d). A caller who declines to provide their name and contact information will be connected with a supervisor “who shall inform the caller of the statutory provisions that protect callers’ confidentiality.” And if the caller declines to provide their information to the supervisor, they will be advised that “(i) preventive and supportive services may be available to assist in addressing concerns relative to the care and well-being of a child and referrals for such services may be provided upon request; and (ii) knowingly reporting false or baseless allegations is a violation of [Penal Law 240.50(4)].” Social Services Law 422(2)(e).
In New York City, 93% of investigations stemming from anonymous calls in 2023 were deemed unsubstantiated. The new law will limit malicious reports and the effects of these unwarranted family policing investigations on families.
Suspended Judgments in Neglect Proceedings Explained
In Matter of N.G. (2026 NY Slip Op 02198), the First Department gave a thorough recitation of the considerations for a suspended judgment in a neglect proceeding. During the family court proceeding, the mother admitted the allegations in the neglect petition and the court entered a finding of neglect based on the use of excessive corporal punishment. At the dispositional hearing, the family court granted the mother a suspended judgment, and the neglect finding was vacated six months later. ACS, as petitioner, and the attorney for the children appealed.
The First Department stated, “‘[A]t its core, a suspended judgment affords a respondent the opportunity to correct [their] neglectful actions.’ Courts considering whether to grant a suspended judgment should examine four factors: ‘(1) the respondent's prior child protective history; (2) the seriousness of respondent's offense; (3) respondent's remorse and acknowledgment of the abusive or neglectful nature of [their] act; and (4) respondent's amenability to correction, including compliance with court orders.’” [Citation omitted.] Unfortunately, in Matter of N.G., the result was not favorable to the parent. The appellate division vacated the suspended judgment and remanded the case to the Bronx Family Court for a new dispositional hearing for the court to determine, based on the above factors, whether a suspended judgment was truly in the best interests of the children.
Another First Department case from 2017 resulted in a positive outcome for the parent. In Matter of Leenasia (154 AD3d 1), the court affirmed the vacatur of a neglect finding based on a suspended judgment that was issued retroactively. The Leenasia court stated that “we find not only that the Family Court Act permits such a retroactive remedy, but that the remedy served the children's best interest under the circumstances of this case.”
While there is no one-size-fits-all rule for how and when a suspended judgment should be issued, both cases serve as an excellent tutorial on the factors and considerations the court must analyze before issuing a suspended judgment. Family defenders are encouraged to familiarize themselves with relevant law, Family Court Act 1053, and to advocate for this disposition when appropriate. Those with questions on this or any other family court topic can contact the Backup Center by email at info@nysda.org.
Denial of the Right to Counsel in Custody Case
In Matter of Crespo (2026 NY Slip Op 02517), the Fourth Department reversed an order of joint custody after determining that the mother’s waiver of her right to counsel was not valid. It is well-established law that the right to raise one’s child is fundamental, and the possibility of infringement of that right entitles a parent to the assignment of counsel in a variety of cases, including an FCA article 6 custody case. Here, the appellate division determined that the mother’s due process rights were violated when the family court judge presiding over the case did not conduct a “searching inquiry” to determine if the decision to proceed pro se was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The court continued that “[a]lthough ‘[a] “searching inquiry” does not have to be made in a formulaic manner,’ ‘the record must demonstrate that the party was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel.’” [Citations omitted.]
An interesting and important aspect of this case is that the custody order in question was issued on default, which generally means that it is not appealable, and instead, a motion to vacate the order must be filed pursuant to CPLR 5015. There is an exception to this rule. The court explained, “In general, ‘[n]o appeal lies from an order [or judgment] entered upon an aggrieved party's default.’ Nevertheless, an appeal from an order or judgment entered upon the default of the appealing party ‘brings up for review those matters which were the subject of contest before the [court].’ The ‘request by a party to waive the right to counsel and proceed pro se ... places in issue whether the court fulfilled its obligation to ensure a valid waiver’ and may be reviewed by this Court on an appeal by the subsequently defaulting pro se party.” [Citations omitted.] More information on the right to counsel, as well as other resources to support defenders, is available on NYSDA’s family defense resource page.
Adolescent and Youth Part Representation
Changing Landscape in RTA Advocacy after People v Guerrero
Court of Appeals Affirms Extraordinary Circumstances Finding under Totality Test, Remaining Silent on Two-Prong Analysis in RTA Transfer Case
In February, the Court of Appeals affirmed a finding by a trial court that extraordinary circumstances existed to deny transfer of a violent felony case to family court under the Raise the Age statute in the case of People v Guerrero, 2026 Slip Op 00826. (NYSDA News Picks reported on the leave grant and other cases addressing extraordinary circumstances under RTA in our September 4, 2025, issue).
In a 4-3 decision, the Court ruled that the appellant’s challenge regarding the trial court’s failure to follow the two-part test, as set forth in the legislative debate when the statute was passed, was not preserved for their review. Rather, the Court applied a totality of circumstances and abuse of discretion analysis, finding that while a different determination would not have been unreasonable, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that under a totality of the circumstances, extraordinary circumstances existed to keep the case in criminal court.
The dissent, authored by Judge Halligan and joined by Chief Judge Wilson and Judge Rivera, concurred on the preservation issue but dissented on the conclusion that the trial court had not abused its discretion in declining to transfer the case to family court. Looking at the legislative history, the dissent argued that:
A court has substantial discretion in making this determination, but that discretion must be exercised within the bounds envisioned by the Legislature. For that guidance, we look to the statute's text and legislative history, which make clear the objective: to provide treatment and services rather than adult punishment to young people, even those charged with violent felonies, except in a very narrow swath of cases. Consistent with that goal, a court can deny removal on this basis only in rare cases where it determines that the totality of circumstances qualify as “extraordinary.” As the legislative history indicates, that inquiry requires consideration of whether the People have demonstrated particularly unusual and heinous facts and strong proof that the defendant is not amenable to services.
Moving forward, defenders are urged not to abandon arguing for the application of the two-prong test, which was not rejected in Guerrero. Rather, vigorous steps should be taken to advocate and preserve the record to ensure that young clients do not lose their rights under Raise the Age to have their cases resolved in family court.
New Practice Advisory Offers Guidance in the Wake of People v Guerrero
Alan Rosenthal, author of A Defense Attorney’s Guide: Representing Adolescents, has issued a practice advisory to help attorneys advocate effectively following the Court of Appeals decision in Guerrero.
The advisory provides an in-depth analysis of the Court of Appeals’ Guerrero decision and sets forth concrete strategies to litigate youth part removal proceedings. NYSDA will host a webinar in the fall with Mr. Rosenthal to refresh practitioners’ knowledge of successful youth advocacy and present tips and techniques for navigating Raise the Age representation post-Guerrero. NYSDA will send out a program announcement, and the program will be added to NYSDA’s training calendar when the date is selected. Defenders with questions are also encouraged to contact our Public Defense Backup Center for assistance: info@nysda.org.
Conditions in Youth Detention Facilities Cause Concern
Youth accused of or convicted of acts that are considered crimes if committed by an adult, may face situations more serious than intended by New York lawmakers, given recent allegations about detention facilities. On April 17, New York Focus reported that “the co-chairs of the Western New York Citizen, Review Panel for Child Protective Services, one of the state’s three federally mandated volunteer child welfare oversight bodies, sent a letter to OCFS’s [Office of Children and Family Services] commissioner expressing alarm at the condition of the state’s youth prisons.” The article also noted that “[t]he two state agencies with direct oversight power rarely investigate OCFS facilities.” The January New York Focus article reported that the Justice Center for the Protection of People With Special Needs reportedly has “no open investigations into solitary confinement at OCFS facilities” while the State Commission of Correction, which has power to audit and penalize OCFS secure facilities, was said to do little oversight work outside of county jails. An ongoing federal lawsuit described in the January 9 article asserts that young people housed in OCFS detention centers are not being provided with required daily educational, vocational, and recreational activities.
Featured Highlights
Reid Technique Elicits False Confession From Chat GPT
In a recent article for the Intercept, Radley Balko, a reporter whose work focuses on the criminal legal system, details how Paul Heaton, the academic director of the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice at the University of Pennsylvania, was able to coerce ChatGPT to confess to a crime it did not commit. No, Heaton did not accuse the bot of murder or rape, or any human act that would be completely impossible for a bot to perpetrate. Instead, he accused the bot of hacking into his own email and sending text messages to his contacts, something that, though plausible in the virtual world, is still not something that the software is able to do.
The Reid Technique is an interrogation technique widely used by law enforcement in the United States to extract confessions from criminal suspects—Canadian and European law enforcement agencies do not employ this practice. Reid is a guilt presumptive technique that has been criticized for being coercive and, therefore, prone to generating false confessions. In fact, the seminal case for which John Reid and his technique were subsequently popularized, ultimately resulted in a finding of actual innocence and the release of the man who was originally convicted of the crime—with a $500,000 settlement for his troubles.
Heaton, who is well-versed in Reid, used its tactics to coerce a confession from Chat GPT, starting with bargaining, moving onto lying (which the police are allowed to do), and ultimately drew up a written confession which he persuaded the bot to sign by ensuring the language was acceptable to them both.
The results of this have experts on false confessions generated by Reid alarmed, but, likewise, believe that it may be useful and interesting to continue to experiment with AI and confession techniques in order to demonstrate the dangers of them as well as to provide more of an understanding of how they work.
MuckRock Guide on How to Use Brady Lists and Public Records to Investigate Police
MuckRock Foundation, dedicated to helping to keep government “transparent and accountable,” posted a guide in April: How to investigate police misconduct using Brady lists and public records. While the guide is primarily aimed at journalists, it may be helpful for attorneys who have not previously sought records from police or prosecutors other than in discovery proceedings. The new guide is just one MuckRock resource. For example, NYSDA’s Law Enforcement Disciplinary Records webpage includes New York Officer Misconduct and Disciplinary Materials from MuckRock.
New Link to UCS Pilot Attorney Referral Program for Court of Claims Prison Cases
An item in the April 27 News Picks, entitled Referral Service Pilot Program to Connect Attorneys to Litigants with Claims Against the State, includes a link that has subsequently broken. The Unified Court System has provided an updated link: https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/court-claims/attorney-referral-program.
Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual Immigration Supplement Available
A Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual (JLM), a handbook of legal rights and procedures designed for people who are incarcerated, published an Immigration and Consular Access Supplement at the end of 2025, which is available for free on the JLM's website. This supplement contains a detailed and comprehensive overview of “The Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity.” This may be a helpful resource for defenders to provide to incarcerated clients. Please note, however, that this supplement does not constitute legal advice, and that it was finalized in the second half of 2025, meaning that some of the law may not be up to date. When mailing out JLM material to people who are incarcerated, be sure to include the “Legal Disclaimer” included in the handbook.
Defenders representing clients who were not born in the United States are reminded to contact their Regional Immigration Assistance Center (RIAC) for assistance.
Observing Mental Health Awareness Month in May
According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, May has been observed as Mental Health Awareness Month since 1949. This observance provides an opportunity to educate sectors of the legal system and the public at large about mental health impacts and trends. As NYSDA observed two years ago in the REPORT, “[f]or defenders and their clients and families, every month can be a mental health month in which legal, medical, and social issues involving mental illness arise.”
An April 17 alert from the Alliance for Rights and Recovery highlighted the necessity of responding “to mental health crises by reducing reliance on police and investing in community-based, health-led responses.” [Highlight in original.] It went on, “[a]s highlighted in a new report from Human Rights Watch, developed in partnership with New York Lawyers for the Public Interest and the Center for Racial and Disability Justice at UCLA Law School, communities across the country are already demonstrating that alternatives centered on autonomy, dignity, and care are not only possible, but effective.” The cited report is here.
The most recent issue of the REPORT includes discussion of police responses and other mental illness issues relevant to defenders.
| 
