Opinion ID: 2084834
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: PKPA Preemption

Text: Although Florida has chosen to retain jurisdiction over any custody matters involving respondent mother and the father of the children, the instant proceeding is not an attempt to modify the foreign custody determination but, rather, a valid exercise of lawful authority by an independent statutorily created governmental agency to intervene on behalf of two New York children at risk. In its role as parens patriae , New York is under a powerful duty to protect its domiciliaries from harm ( see, e.g. , NY Const, art XVII, § 3). Clearly in the context of a child protective proceeding, the State of New York is best placed to carry out this most important duty in protecting its own infant residents. A child protective proceeding under article 10 is specifically designed to protect children from injury, abuse or mistreatment, and to help safeguard their physical, mental and emotional well-being ( see , Family Ct Act § 1011). Thus, because the parties involved and the relief sought in this child protective proceeding are quite distinct from those of a custody dispute, this child protective proceeding is not a custody determination within the meaning of the PKPA or New York's UCCJA ( see , L.G. v People , 890 P2d 647 [Colo]; In re Interest of L. W. , 241 Neb 84, 486 NW2d 486; State ex rel. Department of Human Servs. v Avinger , 104 NM 255, 720 P2d 290; see also , White v Blake , 859 SW2d 551 [Tex App]; cf. , Matter of Mott v Patricia Ann R. , 91 N.Y.2d 856, supra ). We further note New York UCCJA's express exclusion of child protective proceedings from its definition of custody proceeding ( see , Domestic Relations Law § 75-c [3]). Here, DSS is acting independently pursuant to its statutory mandate, having investigated reports of alleged abuse and mistreatment. There is absolutely no evidence that DSS is acting on behalf of the children's father. On the contrary, there is independent clinical corroboration of the harmful effects Sayeh and Arash would suffer if removed from their home. Furthermore, New York State has a compelling interest in assuring the safety and well-being of its domiciliaries. As such, we conclude that Family Court erred in viewing this article 10 proceeding as an attempt to modify the Florida court's custody determination as between the parents, notwithstanding that court's retention of continuing jurisdiction over its prior custody order.