From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Karl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 21, 1990
168 A.D.2d 997 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

December 21, 1990

Appeal from the Onondaga County Family Court, McLaughlin, J.

Present — Denman, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Onondaga County Family Court for a new fact-finding hearing. Memorandum: In this abuse and neglect proceeding, Family Court erred in ordering the Law Guardian, appointed pursuant to Family Court Act §§ 241 and 249 (a), to refrain from contacting the children whom she represented. We cannot perceive how the Law Guardian can act effectively to protect children in the course of a fact-finding hearing in the absence of meaningful communication with them (see generally, Matter of Orlando F., 40 N.Y.2d 103, 112). Thus, Family Court's order, under the circumstances of this case, deprived the children of effective assistance of counsel (see, Matter of Karl S., 118 A.D.2d 1002, 1003). Further, we find that the court did not err in denying the Law Guardian's recusal application (see, People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403). In view of our determination, we do not address petitioner's and the Law Guardian's remaining contentions.


Summaries of

Matter of Karl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 21, 1990
168 A.D.2d 997 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Matter of Karl

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of KARL W. and Another, Children Alleged to be Abused

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Dec 21, 1990

Citations

168 A.D.2d 997 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
564 N.Y.S.2d 940

Citing Cases

In re Jamie TT.

Thus, Jamie had a constitutional as well as a statutory right to legal representation of her interests in the…