Opinion ID: 2084834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Long-Arm Jurisdiction Under the Family Court Act

Text: This Court must find that the petitioner's allegations of neglect occurred in this State to assert personal jurisdiction over the nonresident mother. It is only upon a loose and newly expanded interpretation of neglect that the majority is able to find such jurisdiction and entertain the instant proceeding. Furthermore, the majority's heretofore unrealized finding of purposeful activity runs afoul of constitutional due process. Prior to 1990, the Family Court Act contained no provision to allow service upon an out-of-State respondent parent in child abuse and neglect proceedings. The absence of such statutory authority compelled courts to dismiss such actions involving nonresident parents ( see, e.g. , Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Harry R. , 145 Misc 2d 768). However, in 1990, section 1036 of the Family Court Act was amended to authorize out-of-State service of a summons in child protective proceedings in cases involving abuse or neglect. As stated by the bill's sponsor, the amendment would permit a court in such proceedings to send process without the State pursuant to the long arm jurisdiction provisions of the CPLR where the allegedly abused or neglected child resides within the state ( see , Senator Goodhue, letter to Honorable Evan Davis, June 14, 1990, Bill Jacket, L 1990, ch 268). A year later, in 1991, the statute was again amended to provide long-arm jurisdiction if the child either resides or is domiciled in New York and the subject abuse or neglect occurs in the State. The proponents of the amendment universally felt that the new requirement that the abuse or neglect occur in New York was constitutionally mandated. [4] As currently stated in Family Court Act § 1036 (c): In cases involving either abuse or neglect, the court may send process without the state in the same manner and with the same effect as process sent within the state in the exercise of personal jurisdiction over any person subject to the jurisdiction of the court under section three hundred one or three hundred two of the civil practice law and rules, notwithstanding that such person is not a resident or domiciliary of the state, where the allegedly abused or neglected child resides or is domiciled within the state and the alleged abuse or neglect occurred within the state. Consistent with the requirements of due process, the jurisdictional standards under article 10 of the Family Court Act are not mere technicalities to be dispensed with because children are involved. Since the basis of the proceeding arises from the respondent's in-State abuse or neglect of the child, personal jurisdiction under the Family Court Act is consistent with the general long-arm provisions of the CPLR. The location of the children is not dispositive. It is also the perpetration of instances of neglect or abuse within New York which provides sufficient minimum contacts with this State by a nonresident to allow the assertion of personal jurisdiction over him or her.