.jpg)
Copyright. Wikimedia Commons
The New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department reversed a decision made by New York City Family Court Judge, Sarah P. Schechter, which stated that a mother had neglected her children. Judge Schechter made her decision based on evidence of drugs and drug paraphernalia in the apartment where Sandra R. lived with her children and mother. The children were removed from the apartment and placed into the custody of the paternal grandparents.
The Supreme Court's decision issued on November 5, 2009 stated that the evidence was insufficient to show that the mother had neglected her children. Both Sandra R. and her mother told the police that the drugs and paraphernalia belonged to Sandra's mother, not to her.
The court described the evidence this way:
"The evidence in support of the neglect finding is that police officers recovered from the apartment in which respondent resided with the subject children and her mother one glassine envelope each of heroin and cocaine sufficient to establish misdemeanor crimes, and a digital scale. At the time of the search, respondent, one of the children, respondent's sister, her mother and her mother's boyfriend were present in the apartment. The heroin was recovered from a cabinet in the "dining room kitchenette area," the cocaine from respondent's mother's bedroom, and the scale from a dresser drawer in respondent's bedroom. According to the undisputed evidence at the fact-finding hearing, none of this contraband was in plain view. A police officer testified that respondent's mother told the police that the controlled substances were in the apartment and that they were hers; the officer also testified that respondent told the officers that her mother used drugs and that if any were found, they belonged to her mother. As for the scale, the officer testified that respondent told him about the scale and that it belonged to her infant son's father, who was no longer living in the apartment. Such evidence is legally insufficient to establish neglect under Family Court Act § 1012(f)(i)(B)."
The children had already been returned to the mother by the time of the Supreme Court's decision which came more than twenty months after the New York City Family Court's decision.
For more info: Read more articles by Dan Weaver on family court, child protective services, child custody and related topics.
Comments
Now they can sue the judge, Sarah P. Schechter, as well because her decision was unreasonable and therefore is not judicially protected by the judicial immunity decisions of the Federal courts. I'll bet the case would be settled before it reached a jury.
I have communicated with a father whose wife was falsely accused of being a drug addict, with false, fabricated drug tests, which allegedly showed his wife to be a drug user. The father found out by luck about the false tests / medical records, and demanded that the tests / medical records be corrected. If he had not done this, no doubt his baby would have been stolen by CPS.
cps are lieing kid stealer!!!!!!! they are tring to keep my kids .BECAUSE THAY SCREWED UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MY KIDS ARE BEING USED FOR CPS SCREW UPS .I WAS MISLEADED BY A LAWYER& CPS& .ALL ARE LIARS .JUST MAKE MONEY OFF OF MY KIDS !!!!!I WANT THEM BACK FROM THIS BIG SCAM!!!!!!!! CPS SUCKS!!!!!!!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!