Opinion
D-11447/07.
Decided on June 21, 2011.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Aimee L. Sklar-Calogero of counsel), for Presentment Agency. The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Tamara A. Steckler and Lisa E. Tuntigian of counsel), for respondent.
Kiara C. who was the respondent in this juvenile delinquency proceeding, has moved for an order sealing the record of the case which was filed against her on June 27, 2007.
By petition filed pursuant to Family Court Act § 310.1 the Presentment Agency alleged that Kiara C. (born December 30, 1991) committed acts which, were she an adult, would have constituted the crimes of Manslaughter in the Second Degree (P.L. § 125.15), and Criminally Negligent Homicide (P.L. § 125.10). The petition alleged that respondent, 15 years old at the time the petition was filed, gave birth to a live male infant at her mother's home on April 29, 2007 and that her actions towards the infant after his birth were reckless or criminally negligent, resulting in the infant's death.
On April 29, 2007 respondent believed that she was giving birth and she told her mother that she was going to take a shower and turned the water on. Respondent then gave birth to a live male infant in the bathtub where the infant lay in the running water which covered part of his head and face. Respondent pulled the umbilical cord and placenta from her body and she proceeded to remove the umbilical cord from the infant's stomach. Respondent then returned the infant to the floor of the bathtub where the part of the infant's nose and mouth were covered with water. The infant gasped and respondent picked him up and patted his back and opened his eyelids which did not stay open on their own. Respondent observed bubbles coming from the infant's nose, she cleared the bubbles away and placed the infant on the floor thinking the infant was dead. Respondent then proceeded to clean the bathroom and she then asked her mother to bring her a bag for her sanitary napkin. After respondent's mother brought her a large garbage bag which she handed through a slightly opened bathroom door, respondent wrapped the infant in a towel with his face uncovered and she hid the placenta inside of her clothes and she placed her clothes and the infant inside of the plastic bag and ran to her bedroom so that her mother would not see her.
After arriving in her bedroom, she cradled the infant who was "turning purple at this point". Respondent's mother then knocked on the bedroom door and respondent "panicked" and she "closed the bag and hid it in her closet". Over the next few days the respondent "cradled the baby each night until the night her mother found the baby in the closet" on May 6th. After investigating a "foul odor" emanating from inside of the respondent's bedroom, her mother discovered the deceased infant inside of the garbage bag and she screamed "why didn't you tell me?". Kiara, who was then 15 years old, was scared and became hysterical according to a narrative prepared by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME).
The infant was taken to Elmhurst Hospital on May 6, 2007, declared dead on arrival, and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) took custody of the decedent. A pathologist on the staff of OCME examined the infant in autopsy on May 7, 2007 and a certificate of death was filed on June 22, 2007 stating that the infant died as a result of "asphyxia, type undetermined" on April 29, 2007, and stating that the manner of death was "homicide".
Respondent was arrested on June 20, 2007 and the police released her to the custody of her mother. The juvenile delinquency petition was filed on June 27, 2007 and respondent made her initial appearance before the Court on that date. After being assigned counsel and being advised of her rights, respondent entered a denial to the charges and she was released to the custody of her mother pending further proceedings. On September 7, 2007 the parties appeared and stipulated to the admission of the autopsy report by OCME into evidence. Respondent then proceeded to enter an admission to having committed an act which would have constituted the crime of Manslaughter in the Second Degree as charged in the petition. As part of the agreement underlying respondent's admission, the Presentment Agency stipulated that it would not seek placement of the respondent as a disposition of the case.
The OCME autopsy report states, in pertinent part, that Baby Boy C. died from asphyxiation. The underlying cause of the death was the mother's concealment of her full-term pregnancy and "sudden death" resulting from the unattended birth of the infant at home into a bathtub filled with approximately two inches of water.
The dispositional hearing commenced on October 25, 2007 when the Court received the report of an investigation conducted by the New York City Department of Probation as well as the report of a diagnostic evaluation conducted by the Family Court Mental Health Services Clinic. Respondent's attorney also submitted evidence consisting of a copy of the respondent's report card and two letters from her teachers.
The report of the investigation by the Department of Probation stated that Kiara C., then 15 years old, resides with her mother, Leticia V., in Maspeth, Queens County. Respondent's father, Adolfo C., resides in Richmond Hill. Respondent's older sister, Sehila M., resides in Florida with her husband and son. At the time of the probation investigation, Kiara was enrolled in the 11th grade at Newtown High School in Elmhurst. Respondent told the Probation Officer that she met the biological father of the deceased infant on a social web site on the computer. After "chatting" with the 18-year-old Gabino Ramos via computer for about three weeks, Kiara and Gabino agreed to meet. Kiara and Gabino then spent significant time together for the next month, and their relationship became sexual in nature. While Kiara knew that Gabino belonged to a gang, he treated her well and she stated that "he made me feel good about myself." Kiara never introduced Gabino to her family and she kept her relationship with him "secret".
Kiara missed her menstrual period in August 2006 and she obtained a home pregnancy test kit which produced a positive result. Kiara never told Gabino that she was pregnant and she never informed her mother or her older sister of the pregnancy. Sometime in September 2006 Gabino was arrested and incarcerated. Gabino stayed in telephone contact with Kiara until December 2007 when the contact suddenly stopped. Kiara subsequently learned that Gabino had been deported to Mexico. According to Kiara, "[w]hen I saw that my stomach was not growing, I told myself that the pregnancy test must have been wrong. I never went to the doctor to receive prenatal care", she played on her school volleyball team from September through November 2006 and she played on the school softball team from March through April 2007. Kiara indicated that she "felt no difference to her body [so] I truly believed I was not pregnant, but did not know why I did not get my period."
Kiara gave an account of the birth of the infant to the Probation Officer which included putting the infant into a plastic bag and hiding the bag with the infant in her closet for several days after his birth. Kiara expressed remorse about what had happened. She told the Probation Officer that "I feel very guilty because I should have told my mother. If I had told her everything from the beginning, none of this would have happened. I know that my mother would have helped me, but I was very scared. I am sorry that I could not have helped the baby . I would never want to hurt anybody, especially an innocent baby'."
The Probation Officer spoke with Kiara's father, Adolfo C., himself an illegal immigrant from Mexico. Mr. C. told the Probation Officer that he and Kiara's mother had separated when Kiara was 13 years old. While he no longer resided with the family, Mr. C. maintained regular contact with Kiara who is his only child, and he spent time with her each week pursuant to a court order directing visitation. According to Mr. C., he had "no idea" that Kiara was pregnant as he had observed no change in her physical appearance over the past few months.
Sehila M., the 26-year-old half-sibling of Kiara told the Probation Officer that prior to her relocation to Florida with her husband and their child in August 2007, she had been very involved in assisting her mother in looking after Kiara. Ms. M. indicated that she was "very concerned" that Kiara was socializing over the internet. Ms. M. stated that Kiara had been very depressed after her parents separated and she felt caught between them. Sehila noted that her mother had stopped speaking to Kiara's father after their separation and that Kiara was used as a messenger by both of her parents.
Sehila informed the Probation Officer that her mother had followed a similar pattern with her father in that her mother constantly belittled her father and complained to her about her bad relationship with her father. According to Sehila, "I became very depressed as a teenager and needed therapy because of it." Sehila also volunteered that "Kiara's father is also a very irresponsible and careless person and would constantly cry to her about his problems with my mother. I think that they all need therapy, but my sister especially." Sehila also indicated that she had no idea that Kiara was pregnant. She stated that I was with my sister every day and never knew that she was pregnant. Since Kiara was little she has always been chubby and had a huge belly [but] I did notice that Kiara would constantly drink water and her appetite decreased [which] was very unusual."
Kiara's mother, Leticia V., told the Probation Officer that Kiara was a respectful child and that she poses no behavioral problems in the home. Ms. V. also stated that she had no idea that Kiara had been pregnant, as she too noticed no changes in her physical appearance. With respect to the incident, Ms. V. stated that "I am totally stunned and hurt by this whole ordeal." Ms. V. referred to the incident as "a terrible tragedy" for both Kiara and the deceased infant, whom Ms. V. notably never referred to as her grandson in any of the documents or reports reviewed by this Court.
Kiara discussed her family situation with the Probation Officer. Kiara stated that she has always had a close relationship with her mother, although she noted that there were things she would not tell her mother. Kiara was aware of the poor relationship between her parents and she indicated that her mother has high expectations of her, "especially when it comes to school." She explained that "[m]y mother knows that I want to become a Marine Biologist and [she] tells me that nothing should keep me from my dreams. I want my mother to be proud of me. My older sister is married, has a great husband and child and is doing good. My mother expects me to do the same. I do not want to disappoint her." Kiara also indicated that she has a good relationship with her father and that she spends time with him every week. Kiara noted that when her parents initially separated she believed that the separation "was my fault." With respect to the incident involving her child, Kiara told the Probation Officer that she feels "shame' for not telling her sister that she was pregnant and state[d] that she constantly thinks about the newborn infant that perished."
Kiara's guidance counselor at Newtown High School provided information to the Probation Officer. According to the counselor, Kiara has an excellent attendance record and she presents no problems at school. The counselor noted that Kiara had been enrolled in several honors classes in the prior school semester, but she failed two classes, Science, and Technology, although she finished with a cumulative average of 76.77%. When the Probation Officer discussed Kiara's performance during the most recent school semester, both Kiara and her mother indicated that her grades had suffered as a result of the incident, but that she was going to put more effort into her education. Finally, the Probation Officer spoke with Kiara's treating Psychiatrist at Elmhurst Hospital. The Psychiatrist told the Probation Officer that Kiara had been attending weekly individual psychotherapy sessions since August 2007 as well as joint counseling sessions with her mother. The Psychiatrist reported that Kiara has been compliant with treatment which includes prescribed medication.
In her evaluative summary the Probation Officer took particular note of the poor relationship between Kiara's parents and the fact that the child was caught in the midst of that situation. According to the Probation Officer, Kiara's father characterizes his relationship with her as that of "best friends" rather than of parent and child. The Probation Officer further observed that Kiara's mother regularly denigrates Kiara's father, and that she also regularly denigrated the father of her older daughter, presumably in the presence of both of her daughters. Kiara's situation is further complicated by the fact that her older sister Sehila was held up as a role model for her and she is expected by both her mother and sister to achieve as much or more than Sehila. Kiara's relationship with Gabino Ramos, the 18-year-old gang member who fathered her child made her feel "good about herself' and "in love", but the relationship led to a pregnancy which Kiara did not reveal to her mother, her sister, nor the baby's father. The Probation Officer concluded that Kiara's actions were the reckless acts of a frightened teenager, and given her overall academic performance and the fact that she poses no threat to the safety of the community, it was recommended that Kiara be placed on enhanced supervision probation by the Court.
The Psychologist from the Mental Health Services Clinic interviewed both Kiara and her mother in connection with the diagnostic evaluation. According to the Psychologist, Kiara's academic performance at school is adequate and she is active in interscholastic sports. While Kiara has close relationships with two cousins who live near her, it was noted that Kiara "did not report any close intimate friendships with schoolmates, just associations with teammates at school." Kiara reported that she has been engaging in sexual intercourse since age 14 and as "[h]er family reportedly focused on school [they] did not really discuss sex with her."
With respect to the divorce of her parents, "Kiara admitted experiencing some difficulty during and following her parents' divorce but denied sharing these feelings with anyone or receiving any treatment at that time. She stated that there was no communication and she was given no details of what was going on between her parents." Kiara also reported some problems adjusting to living only with her mother after her father moved out of the home and that both she and her older sister facilitated communication of information between the parents as refused to communicate with each other. The Psychologist also observed that "[s]ince the respondent's pregnancy and the subsequent death of the infant, Kiara had been experiencing significant emotional distress"and she has been receiving treatment at Elmhurst Hospital.
The report also recounted how Kiara hid the pregnancy from her family and from fellow students at school, and that she was ashamed and in denial over her pregnancy which culminated in the birth of the child in secret in the bathroom at home, and the hiding of the infant in the closet of her bedroom. Following the discovery of the infant's body by respondent's mother, respondent went to Elmhurst Hospital where she was treated for an infection and upon discharge, was prescribed medication and psychiatric counseling.
The psychologist diagnosed Kiara with Depressive Disorder-not otherwise specified, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder resulting from the pregnancy and the death of the infant. Accord-ing to the report, Kiara appears to have experienced significant emotional problems resulting from the separation and divorce of her parents. This led to her "engag[ing] in high risk behaviors including communicating with older men via the internet and culminating in having unprotected sex with an adult (18-year-old) she barely knew. From the time she learned she was pregnant she repeatedly employed the primitive defense mechanisms of denial and repression to protect herself from the reality of her situation, thereby causing greater harm to herself and the fetus. When the time came for the birth of the infant, the respondent continued to function in the same self-protective mode, keeping everything to herself and trying to deal with the matter on her own. Unfortunately, this was not adequate and ultimately the infant died and the respondent fell apart psychologically."
The psychologist observed that respondent still suffered from "significant emotional distress" and that she "was functioning on a marginal level" while experiencing "significant difficulty with sleep [and] mood lability and recurrent and intrusive images and/or thoughts." While Kiara was receiving medication, that only provided some relief and it was recommended that she continue in intensive psychotherapy while receiving supervision by the Department of Probation in the community.
A dispositional hearing was conducted before the Court on October 25, 2007. The reports from the Department of Probation and the Mental Health Services Clinic were received in evidence, along with respondent's school records. At the conclusion of the hearing, respondent was found to be in need of supervision and treatment and she was adjudicated to be a juvenile delinquent. Respondent was placed under the supervision of the Department of Probation for a period of 18 months upon specific conditions including: (i) respondent to continue with her prescribed course of prescribed psychiatric medications; (ii) respondent to continue receiving psychotherapy from her therapist for so long as clinically necessary; (iii) respondent to be referred for bereavement counseling and a program which addresses dating violence as it was alleged that the infant's father was threatening towards her; (iv) respondent is to attend school regularly with no school suspensions and directed to continue to participate in pro-social extracurricular activities; and (v) respondent to have no contact with the father of the infant, although it had been reported that he had been deported to Mexico by immigration authorities.
Additionally, the Department of Probation was directed to provide monthly status reports concerning respondent to both the Presentment Agency and respondent's attorney, and respondent's attorney was granted leave to move for relief pursuant to Family Court Act § 355.1 after Kiara had successfully completed 15 months of probation supervision. While the Court anticipated that a motion for relief from the order of disposition would be filed while respondent was still under the period of probation supervision imposed by the Court, that motion was never filed. Instead, this motion to seal the record was filed on March 22, 2011, long after the period of probation had elapsed and subsequent to Kiara's 19th birthday.
A
In support of the motion to seal the record, respondent, through her attorney, alleges that she successfully completed the 18 month period of probation supervision imposed at disposition, she has graduated from high school, she began attending college, and is now enrolled in an automotive mechanic program at the Lincoln Technical School from which she is expected to graduate in November 2011. In addition, respondent continued with individual psychotherapy throughout and after the period or probation supervision, she complied with all conditions of probation, she has not been arrested since being placed on probation, and she continues to reside with her mother.
Respondent's factual contentions are supported by documentary evidence which has been submitted to the Court: a letter from Kavita Vasu, M.D., an Attending Psychiatrist at Elmhurst Hospital, which states that "Kiara C. successfully completed her psychiatric treatment here at Elmhurst Hospital on 6/30/09"; a letter from the Department of Probation dated March 16, 2011 states that "Kiara successfully completed probation supervision on April 29, 2009 [and] complied with the conditions of probation as all aspects of the Enhanced Supervision Program"; and a certificate of enrollment from Lincoln Technical Institute states that respondent enrolled as a full-time student in the Automotive Technology Program on November 1, 2010 and that her anticipated graduation date is November 16, 2011.
Subsequent to the filing of the motion on February 22, 2011 the Court entered an order directing that respondent obtain and file a copy of her most recent psychological evaluation or a discharge summary from her treating psychiatrist or psychologist at Elmhurst Hospital. According to respondent's attorney, no evaluation or discharge summary could be obtained from the hospital and the brief letter submitted to the Court was all that could be provided.
The Presentment Agency has filed extensive responding papers strenuously opposing the motion and the cogent arguments made by the Assistant Corporation Counsel are discussed subsequently.
II
A motion to seal records where a juvenile delinquency proceeding has resulted in an adjudication of juvenile delinquency is governed by Family Court Act § 375.2. That section of the statute reads as follows:
1. If an action has resulted in a finding of delinquency pursuant to sub-division one of section 352.1, other than a finding that the respondentcommitted a designated felony act, the court may, in the interest of justice and upon motion of the respondent, order the sealing of appropriate recordspursuant to subdivision one of section 375.1.
2. Such motion must be in writing and may be filed at any time subsequent to the entering of such finding. Notice of such motion shall be served upon the presentment agency not less than eight days prior to the return date of the motion. Answering affidavits shall be served at least two days before such time.
3. The Court shall state on the record its reasons for granting or denying the motion.
4. If such motion is denied, it may not be renewed for a period of one year, unless the order of denial permits renewal at an earlier time.
5. The court shall not order sealing of any record except as prescribed by this section or section 375.1.
Family Court Act § 375.1 relates to the sealing of records after the termination of a juvenile delinquency proceeding in favor of the respondent.
6. Such a motion cannot be filed until the respondent's sixteenth birthday.
Family Court Act § 375.2 concerns the sealing of official records where a juvenile delinquency proceeding results in an adjudication of delinquency. Family Court Act § 375.1 concerns the sealing of official records where a juvenile delinquency proceeding terminates in favor of the accused. These related statutory provisions are intended to prevent a person who was the subject of a juvenile delinquency proceeding from future prejudice which may be caused by private persons or public agencies have access to records relating to the proceeding.
To that end, whether the records are sealed automatically in accordance with Family Court Act § 375.1 or sealed subsequent to a juvenile delinquency adjudication in accordance with Family Court Act § 375.2, the statute strictly limits the circumstances under which an individual or public agency may gain access to such records ( Matter of Alonzo M. v. New York City Department of Probation, 72 NY2d 662, 667-668; see also, 22 NYCRR § 205.5 [access to Family Court records]).
Restrictions upon the access to and use of records relating to juvenile delinquency proceedings are consistent with the underlying nature and purpose of such proceedings. While juvenile delinquency proceedings are premised upon the commission of criminal conduct by an individual under the age of 16 ( see, Fam. Ct. Act § 301.2; Matter of Raymond G., 93 NY2d 531, 535-536), juvenile delinquency proceedings under the present statute or its predecessors do not constitute criminal proceedings ( People v. Lewis, 260 NY 171, 176 [1932]; Matter of Samuel W., 24 NY2d 196, 201-202, rev'd 397 US 358; Matter of Quinton A., 49 NY2d 328, 335; Matter of Carmelo E., 57 NY2d 431, 435; Green v. Montgomery, 95 NY2d 693, 698).
The purpose of juvenile delinquency proceedings is to empower the Family Court to intervene and provide services to troubled youth with the goal of rehabilitating them so that they live law abiding adult lives without the necessity of burdening them with the stigma of a criminal conviction ( Quinton A. at 334-335; Matter of Benjamin L., 92 NY2d 660, 667; Matter of Robert J., 2 NY3d 339, 346; Sebastian v. State of New York, 250 AD2d 260, 262, aff'd 93 NY2d 790). In that respect "a hallmark of the juvenile justice system is that a delinquency adjudication cannot constitute a criminal conviction and a juvenile delinquent cannot be denominated a criminal" ( Green at 698).
The statute under which respondent seeks relief, Family Court Act § 375.2, specifically authorizes the Family Court to order the sealing of all court, probation, prosecution and Police Department records relating to a juvenile delinquency proceeding in which the respondent was adjudicated to be a juvenile delinquent ( see, Fam. Ct. Act § 375.1). The sole exception to the availability of sealing is where the youth was determined to have committed a designated felony act as defined by Family Court Act § 301.2 (8), which is not the situation here.
Designated felony acts are the most serious and typically violent acts upon which a juvenile delinquency petition may be based ( Raymond G. at 537). Certain young persons between the ages of 16 and 19 who are convicted of criminal conduct are eligible for youthful offender treatment by a criminal court. A youthful offender adjudication results in the vacatur of the conviction (Criminal Procedure Law § 720.20 [3]), and a sealing of court and law enforcement records relating to the case (Criminal Procedure Law § 720.35 [2]). However, because a juvenile delinquent who has been found to have committed a designated felony act is ineligible for youthful offender treatment upon a subsequent criminal conviction (Criminal Procedure Law § 720.10 [2] [c]), records of a juvenile delinquency proceeding involving a designated felony finding should not be sealed.
A motion to seal records after an adjudication of juvenile delinquency may be granted where it is determined that sealing is in the interest of justice ( e.g., Matter of Carlton B., 268 AD2d 368, 369; Matter of Rosa R. , 68 AD3d 407). While the statute does not define "in the interest of justice" that terminology is frequently encountered in the area of criminal law. An application based upon the "interest of justice" is addressed to the discretion of the court and it relates to "the totality of all the circumstances in the particular case" ( People v. Tyler, 46 NY2d 264, 266-267 [internal citation omitted]). Where a court is asked to exercise its discretion to act "in the interest of justice", the court is not vested with "an untrammeled right to act on purely subjective considerations" ( People v. Rickert, 58 NY2d 122, 126). Instead the court must engage in "a sensitive balancing of the interests of the individual and of the People" ( id. at 127), so that "a proper result is reached" ( People v. Cornish, 43 AD2d 103, 104).
A
Having considered the well-presented arguments of counsel both in support and in opposition to the motion, and upon considering the pertinent factors in this case, which include the nature of the conduct which led to the juvenile delinquency adjudication, the impact which respondent's actions had upon the victim, respondent's compliance with the conditions imposed by the Court, and her successful completion of the period of probation, the Court concludes that the interest of justice compels that the motion to seal the record be granted.
The criminal conduct committed by Kiara C. which resulted in the death of her newborn son was shocking and horrific and it should not be minimized. However, respondent's conduct cannot be viewed in a vacuum but rather it must be viewed in conjunction with the circumstances which existed at the time of the incident. The unfortunate events in this case were the result of a sex offense perpetrated against the respondent herself, as she was 14 years old at the time she was impregnated by her 18-year-old boyfriend, a person she barely knew ( see, Penal Law § 130.30). Kiara carried the fetus to term and she gave birth on May 6, 2007, after hiding her pregnancy from the public as well as her own family. Her own parents had separated and then divorced several years earlier and she was being raised by her mother as a single parent. While Kiara's father remained involved in her life through twice weekly court-ordered visitation, her parents no longer interacted with each other and it appears that Kiara's mother refused to even speak with her father. Thus, Kiara was utilized as an intermediary by both of her parents in order to transmit information between them.
The separation and divorce of her parents led to Kiara experiencing emotional distress and feelings of isolation, as observed by the psychologist who evaluated her. According to the psychologist, Kiara's emotional distress led her to engage in "high risk" behavior which culminated in her having a relationship with the 18-year-old young man who impregnated her as a result of unprotected sexual intercourse. After Kiara learned of her pregnancy by way of a self-administered home pregnancy test, she was afraid to inform the child's father, a "gang member" who was sometimes "mean" to her and who was incarcerated soon after Kiara learned of the pregnancy. Kiara also did not inform her mother that she was pregnant because she was fearful of the possible reaction. Instead Kiara kept her pregnancy secret throughout the entire period of gestation, and her pregnancy apparently went unnoticed by her mother and married older sister who resided elsewhere. It should be noted however that there is some suggestion in the probation report from Kiara's softball coach that Kiara's teammates knew Kiara was pregnant, but there is no way to ascertain whether Kiara informed her teammates that she was pregnant, or whether they reached that deduction through their own observations.
While Kiara and her mother both professed to have a close relationship, Kiara's did not tell her mother of the pregnancy nor seek her assistance when she gave birth or afterwards despite the overwhelming dire circumstances which this 15-year-old child faced. Indeed, Kiara's mother appears to have been a stern and demanding parent who was in complete denial over Kiara's relationship with the 18-year-old father, her daughter's pregnancy, and the subsequent death of the newborn infant. Kiara and her mother lived alone and saw each other every day. It seems inconceivable that the mother never noticed physical or emotional changes in her daughter and never suspected that she might have been pregnant.
Although the infant was born alive and he died as a result of Kiara's actions, which included hiding the still living infant in a garbage bag in her closet for six days, Kiara's mother told the social worker at the Mental Health Services Clinic that "she is in Family Court because her daughter gave birth to a dead child'". It is notable that Kiara's mother never made reference to the infant as her grandson in the course of the interviews conducted by the probation officer or the psychologist. Notwithstanding the events which occurred, Ms. V. insisted that Kiara is a good and obedient child, a good student who never disobeys her, and that Kiara never exhibited any behavioral or emotional problems prior to the death of the infant.
The psychologist who evaluated Kiara found that she suffered from Depressive Disorder-NOS, as well as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). While the PTSD was clearly attributable to the brief but harrowing relationship with the infant's father, the hidden pregnancy, the difficulties encountered by a 15-year-old who gave birth alone in a bathroom at home while her mother was elsewhere in the apartment, the death of the infant, and the discovery of the infant's body by her own mother, the report strongly indicates that Kiara was psychologically damaged by her own family circumstances before she became pregnant. As noted by the psychologist, Kiara appeared to have no close intimate relationships with persons outside of her immediate family, and her closest friends are two cousins who live next door to her. Her mother demanded that Kiara excel in school and in life, holding Kiara's elder sister up as a role model, but it unclear whether Kiara's mother was much involved in Kiara's daily activities. Although it is impossible to quantify, the poisonous relationships which Ms. C. has with the fathers of both of daughters, must have affected Kiara.
After being placed under probation supervision by the Court, Kiara complied with all conditions, including individual psychotherapy which concluded on June 30, 2009, taking prescribed medication, and school attendance. Kiara graduated from High School and she is presently enrolled in an automotive technology program at Lincoln Technical Institute from which she expects to graduate in November 2011. Kiara is now 19 years old, has indicated that she intends to pursue a career as a professional in the field of automotive technology and that she continues to have a good relationship with both of her parents who continue to support her in her pursuits. Kiara has had no further involvement with the criminal justice system and from all accounts she is living in her community as a law abiding young adult.
The Presentment Agency correctly notes that this case involves the death of a newborn infant whose death is attributable to his own mother. This was a serious incident and it should in no way be minimized. However, the fact remains that Kiara was 15 years old when she became pregnant by an 18-year-old young man she apparently barely knew. Although the young man was a gang member who acted in a mean and threatening manner towards her, Kiara stated that he made her feel good about herself and in love, typical reactions for a young woman who has caught the attention of an older young man.
The reports submitted at the dispositional hearing reflect that Gabino became threatening when Kiara refused to come to visit him while he was being held on Rikers Island.
Kiara was unprepared for motherhood and she was emotionally unable to cope with the situation in which she found herself, which is why the juvenile delinquency adjudication was based upon a determination that Kiara acted recklessly rather than intentionally. With no one to confide in, she hid her pregnancy for its entire duration and gave birth alone. Kiara sought no help for herself or her son from her own mother or other family members after the delivery of the infant, an irrational decision which resulted in the death of the infant and psychological damage to herself. How this 15-year-old child could hide her pregnancy from her own mother with whom she lived, her father and her older sister, with whom she claims to have had a close relationship, remains a mystery, and the claim that the pregnancy went unnoticed by any adult family member for its entire duration is inexplicable.
B
In deciding respondent's application the Court cannot simply focus on the incident and its immediate aftermath, including respondent's taped confession which has never been admitted into evidence as no hearings were held in this case. The incident occurred four years ago and the confession of a scared and emotionally distraught 15-year-old would add little to the Court's analysis. The Court must consider respondent's behavior and circumstances subsequent to the incident, not simply focus upon the horrific circumstances which brought respondent before the Court in 2007.
As the Presentment Agency and this Court have observed, the statute provides no specific criteria for determining when a motion to seal records subsequent to a delinquency adjudication should be granted. It is probable that the Legislature did not provide specific criteria in Family Court Act § 375.2 and instead utilized the more general "interest of justice" standard because each application for sealing must be decided on an individual basis, taking into account the nature of the underlying incident and the unique circumstances of each juvenile. Indeed, the two Family Court decisions cited by the Presentment Agency ( Matter of A.B., 13 Misc 3d 1242A, 2006 NY Slip Op 52291[U]; Matter of Donald R., 26 Misc 3d 1239A, 2010 NY Slip Op 50469[U]), stand for the proposition that an application for sealing must be determined based upon the unique circumstances of each case.
The decision in Matter of Rosa R. ( 68 AD3d 407 ), although affirming a Family Court order denying an application for sealing, is not to the contrary. In that decision the Appellate Division only mentions the seriousness of the criminal conduct upon which the adjudication of delinquency was based and the protections provided by related portions of the Family Court Act. The decision in Matter of Rosa B. cites the decision in Matter of Carlton B. ( 268 AD2d 368) as precedent for its holding. Carlton B. involved the denial of an application to seal records of a juvenile delinquency proceeding where the movant was subsequently convicted of murder and he had applied for parole. The Appellate Division found that under those circumstances, the juvenile record should be available for inspection and consideration by the Parole Board.
This Court has fully considered the seriousness of the underlying conduct which brought the respondent before the Family Court. Respondent's reckless conduct resulted in the death of her newborn son, and she will continue to suffer the consequences of her actions, regardless of whether or not the Court grants or denies the motion. The Court placed respondent on probation with specific conditions relating to her rehabilitation as a result of the delinquency adjudication as she presented no danger to public safety, but did require supervision and treatment. These goals have been achieved ( see, People v. Letterlough, 86 NY2d 259, 264-265; Matter of Ashley D., 55 AD3d 605, 606; Matter of Eunique B., 73 AD3d 764), and respondent does not now present a danger to public safety.
The Presentment Agency has expressed a concern that respondent somehow presents a threat to young children because she once thought of a career as a teacher or because she once worked as an aide in a child day care facility. Notably, at disposition no order of protection or condition of probation prohibiting Kiara from having contact with children, including her then 18-month-old nephew, was requested by the Presentment Agency. It is reasonable to presume that no order of that kind was sought because there was no reason to believe that Kiara presented a danger to children at the time. Certainly neither the Department of Probation nor the Mental Health Services Clinic were of the opinion that Kiara presented a threat to public safety in general, or to young children in particular, as both agencies recommended that she be placed on probation in the community. There is no indication, four years after the conclusion of the case, that Kiara presents danger to any child which would somehow justify denial of the motion.
The adjudication of juvenile delinquency in this case was never intended to constitute a Scarlet Letter which must be forever displayed to the public at large, and the notion of imposing punishment is contrary to the purposes underlying the juvenile delinquency statute. Granting the requested relief in no way grants Kiara absolution of personal responsibility for what occurred in 2007, and she will live with that for the rest of her life.
Because the juvenile delinquency proceeding resulted in an adjudication, should Kiara ever be convicted of a crime, the criminal court may consider the record of this proceeding at sentencing (Fam. Ct. Act § 381.2 [2]).
It is therefore,
ORDERED, that the motion is granted for the reasons set forth herein and that the Clerk shall send the notices to the appropriate agencies and persons as required by Family Court Act § 375.1 (1).
This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.