Opinion ID: 2227102
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ex Parte Removal by Court Order

Text: If the agency believes that there is insufficient time to file a petition, the next step on the continuum should not be emergency removal, but ex parte removal by court order ( see e.g. Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. on behalf of Dante M. v Denise J. , 87 NY2d 73 [1995]). Section 1022 of the Family Court Act provides that the court may enter an order directing the temporary removal of a child from home before the filing of a petition if three factors are met. First, the parent must be absent or, if present, must have been asked and refused to consent to temporary removal of the child and must have been informed of an intent to apply for an order. Second, the child must appear to suffer from abuse or neglect of a parent or other person legally responsible for the child's care to the extent that immediate removal is necessary to avoid imminent danger to the child's life or health. Third, there must be insufficient time to file a petition and hold a preliminary hearing. Just as in a section 1027 inquiry, the court must consider whether continuation in the child's home would be contrary to the best interests of the child; whether reasonable efforts were made prior to prevent or eliminate the need for removal from the home; and whether imminent risk to the child would be eliminated by the issuance of a temporary order of protection directing the removal of the person from the child's residence [11] . Here, the court must engage in a fact-finding inquiry into whether the child is at risk and appears to suffer from neglect. The Practice Commentaries suggest that section 1022 may be unfamiliar, or seem unnecessary, to those in practice in New York City, where it is common to take emergency protective action without prior court review (Besharov, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, Family Ct Act § 1022 at 10, [1999 ed]). If, as the District Court's findings suggest, this was done in cases where a court order could be obtained, the practice contravenes the statute. Section 1022 ensures that in most urgent situations, there will be judicial oversight in order to prevent well-meaning but misguided removals that may harm the child more than help. As the comment to the predecessor statute stated, this section . . . [is] designed to avoid a premature removal of a child from his home by establishing a procedure for early judicial determination of urgent need (Committee Comments, Family Ct Act repealed § 322 [1963]). Whether analyzing a removal application under section 1027 or 1022, or an application for a child's return under section 1028, a court must engage in a balancing test of the imminent risk with the best interests of the child and, where appropriate, the reasonable efforts made to avoid removal or continuing removal. The term safer course ( see e.g. Matter of Kimberly H. , 242 AD2d 35 [1st Dept 1998]; Matter of Tantalyn TT. , 115 AD2d 799 [3d Dept 1985]) should not be used to mask a dearth of evidence or as a watered-down, impermissible presumption.