Social Worker and Court

Family Law Court Observation Rachel Faybyshev Family Law Ally, Esq. Family Law Court Observation I visited the NYC Family courthouse that is located in 60 Lafayette St. on October 13, 2016. I thought I had a pretty good idea of what it was going to be like. Since I've watched a lot of crime related and legal drama television shows, I already had a picture painted in my head of what to expect.

When I first arrived I had to walk through a metal detector and clear security like at the airport, but that was something I was prepared for. When advising a client on how to dress I would definitely tell them to dress professional, but comfortable and leave as much jewelry as possible at home. I then proceeded to the fourth floor to observe the first proceeding.

There were some aspects of the courthouse that were exactly like how I thought they would be, but the courtroom itself was nothing like what I expected. I observed eight cases in total, although one of the cases was adjourned to another date right away because both parties never showed up. Each courtroom was relatively small; it included the bench for the judge, tables for the respondent and petitioner, and about two rows of benches for any observers.

The first case I observed was a child protection/domestic violence case, which was on its last step at the time of observation. The case involved a mother claiming that her husband was abusive and she needed to protect her child. The mother and father were both present at the hearing accompanied by their attorneys as well as a worker from ACS with her attorney. The father's attorney stated that the father has been attending a domestic violence course weekly since May.

Based on the information provided, the mother had agreed to let her husband come back into their home. The judged ruled to allow the father to come back into the home as a six-month test period where ACS will still be visiting the home. The father must finish the domestic violence course; this conditional agreement will be over on April 13, 2017. During this period, the ACS must submit three reports on 15th December 2016, 16th February 2016, and 13th April 2016.

If all conditions are met, the case will not need to be revisited after the end date. The hearing was very brief and only lasted about 10 minutes because both parties had already agreed on an arrangement. Given the information presented in this case, I think that both parties came to a reasonable agreement. The service oriented issues discussed in this case is child protection services and education for domestic violence.

The action points I would apply are similar to the judge's ruling on granting the father visitation to his child while attending domestic violence classes. I would address service oriented issues in this case similar to the judge i.e. on the premise that they can be resolved amicably between the parties. The second case observed was the one that got adjourned within 5 minutes because both clients never showed up. The parties that did show up were the three attorneys involved in the case and the judge.

The attorney representing the petitioner asked for an immediate adjournment, which was allowed by the judge and the new court date was set for November 3, 2016 at 3:30pm. The third case I observed was a divorce case due to domestic violence. This case took place in Part 9 courtroom, which is the only hybrid courtroom in the State that acts as a Supreme Court and Family Court. When changing courts, the courtroom and judge are the same but different clerks are present.

For the divorce case, the court acted as a Supreme Court. The parties present were the judge, the attorney of the woman filing for divorce, and a Spanish-speaking interpreter. The woman filed for divorce on the premise that the husband is abusive. The Judge granted a two-year order of protection while the divorce is being processed. Although the order of protection is in place, the woman has agreed to allow her husband to live in the apartment until he found his own assistant living.

I was very puzzled by that agreement because I didn't understand how a person could live in the same household as someone with a restraining order against them. After inquiring about that situation, I was told that respondent is allowed to live in the same household, but still uphold the protective order by not harming the petitioner. The service oriented issue in this case was the husband's violent nature that affected his relationship with the wife.

I would address this issue differently by requiring the man to live separately from his wife as part of the restraining order against her. In this case, the practice point I would apply to what was observed is completely restraining the respondent from contacting the petitioner. The next case I observed was located in that same courtroom, but the court now acted as a family courtroom because this was a circumstance/custody case.

The parties present were the judge, same judge as the last hearing, the two clients (wife and husband), the same Spanish interpreter from the last case, and an attorney representing the child though the child was not present. This case had been settled before with the agreement that both parents get custody of their 12-year-old child alternating one week each. However, there has been a change in circumstance and the husband is alleging that the wife is abusive towards their son.

He stated that the mother hits the son, does not care for the child, does not feed the child properly, and allows the child to stay out all hours of the night. The child's lawyer corroborated the allegations and said that the child told her the mother hits him with objects, curses at him, and treats him very badly. She says that the son wants to live with the father only and does not even want to see his mother.

After hearing the allegations, the Judge asked if both parties wanted an attorney. While they agreed, there were no attorneys available that day so the case was adjourned to October 24, 2016. The Judge stated that the child could stay with the father until then and also ordered for an expedited Court Ordered Investigation (COI) by ACS. The Judge is also going to do an "in camera" hearing with the child alone. The services oriented issues discussed in the case are child custody and visitation issues based on changing circumstances.

I would address these issues in similar ways to the judge and grant the father temporary custody as a practice point. The next case that I observed next was a Part 4 neglect case in the same courtroom as the last two hearings. The parties present were the Judge, the two clients accompanied by their attorneys, and the attorney representing the child. The child in question is a four-year-old named Amber Adams whose father is mentally ill and lives in Fort Washington shelter. He is petitioning for visitation rights.

The mother had filed for sole custody prior to this hearing, but the petition was withdrawn. When the Judge asked the woman if she would allow for supervised or non-supervised visitation, she opted for supervised visitation. The child's attorney chimed in and argued that due to the father's mental state, that visitation would be appropriate right now because there have been problems in the past. The father claimed that he hasn't seen his child in 2 years, but the mother said it has only been 6 months.

As a compromise, the judge ordered a risk assessment of the father with mental health services and depending on the results, visitation rights will be discussed. Both parties agreed to those terms and the case was set for hearing on November 23,, 2016 at 9:30. The service oriented issues in the case include child visitation and the mental health status of the father. Similar to the judge, I would address these issues through ordering a risk assessment of the father's mental health before deciding on visitation rights.

The practice points I would apply include mental health evaluations and home assessments. The next case I observed was about a custody case of a 16-year-old girl named Leia who was put into a foster agency in the care of the commissioner and has gone AWOL consistently. The latest incident happened two weeks ago and the agency has neither been able to locate her nor notify the court to issue a warrant.

The parties present at the most recent hearing was the Judge, Leia's mother and her attorney, the head of the foster agency and her attorney, and Leia's attorney. Leia's lawyer claimed he does not presently know where she is. After Leia went AWOL she was arrested on a marijuana charge. The mother is petitioning a 10.28 in which she wants her child back in her care due to the fact that she believes the agency is incompetent in taking care of her.

The mother's attorney states that all of her drug tests have come back negative since July. The Judge was not able to proceed on the 10.28 because the child was not present. The Judge issued a warrant and adjourned the case till the next day October 14, 2016 and stated that if Leia appears, he will rule on where to place her and will vacate the warrant. The service oriented issue discussed in this case is the provision of care services by the foster agency.

I would address this issue through ordering a risk assessment of this agency and a historical analysis of the effectiveness of its care services. The practice points I would apply include finding the child, examining drug tests, and having an on camera hearing with the child alone. The next case that I observed was a juvenile delinquent case. The parties present were the Judge, the respondent (15-year-old girl), her stepfather, and a social worker from JJI assigned to the case.

The 15-year-old girl was put on probation and this hearing was to see the progress of the case. The social worker stated that she has been having sessions with the girl and her stepfather weekly and sometimes the stepfather's two sons or the girl's boyfriend would join them in their sessions. The social worker said that she has made a lot of progress in school and all her.