Narrative Opinion Summary
The Family Court's order from October 15, 1993, which adjourned the abuse proceeding in contemplation of dismissal and imposed conditions, was reversed. The appellate court determined that the Family Court erred by granting the adjournment without the consent of the child's Law Guardian, in violation of Family Court Act § 1039. Citing precedents, the court reaffirmed that such adjournments require the approval of the child's attorney or Law Guardian. The case has been remitted to the Family Court of Saratoga County for further proceedings consistent with this ruling. The decision was concurred by Justices Mikoll, P. Mercure, Crew III, and Yesawich Jr. No costs were awarded.
Legal Issues Addressed
Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal under Family Court Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court found that the Family Court improperly adjourned the abuse proceeding without obtaining the required consent from the child's Law Guardian.
Reasoning: The appellate court determined that the Family Court erred by granting the adjournment without the consent of the child's Law Guardian, in violation of Family Court Act § 1039.
Remittal for Further Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case has been remitted to the Family Court for further actions consistent with the appellate court's ruling, emphasizing adherence to procedural requirements.
Reasoning: The case has been remitted to the Family Court of Saratoga County for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.
Requirement of Law Guardian's Consentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision highlights the necessity of obtaining the Law Guardian's consent for adjournments in abuse proceedings, ensuring representation and protection of the child's interests.
Reasoning: Citing precedents, the court reaffirmed that such adjournments require the approval of the child's attorney or Law Guardian.