conclusion of a dispositional hearing in New York

2007There are few reported New York cases where suspended judgments were granted after findings of neglect under Family Court Act § 1053 5 (Matter of Melinda D., 31 AD3d 24 [2d Dept 2006]; Matter of Dana XX., 28 AD3d 1025 [3d Dept 2006]; Matter of Thomas JJ., 14 AD3d 953 [3d Dept 2005]; Matter of Frank Y., 11 AD3d 740 [3d Dept 2004]; Matter of Ziaire M., 309 AD2d 938 [2d Dept 2003]; Matter of Thelonius BB., 299 AD2d 775 [3d Dept 2002]; Matter of Demetrius X., 228 AD2d 804 [3d Dept 1996]; see also Hollenbeck v Boivert, 330 F Supp 2d 324, 328 [SD NY 2004] [court noted prior consent order of suspende

2007There are few reported New York cases where suspended judgments were granted after findings of neglect under Family Court Act § 1053 [FN5] ( Matter of Melinda D. , 31 AD3d 24 [2d Dept 2006]; Matter of Dana XX. , 28 AD3d 1025 [3d Dept 2006]; Matter of Thomas JJ. , 14 AD3d 953 [3d Dept 2005]; Matter of Frank Y. , 11 AD3d 740 [3d Dept 2004]; Matter of Ziaire M. , 309 AD2d 938 [2d Dept 2003]; Matter of Thelonius BB. , 299 AD2d 775 [3d Dept 2002]; Matter of Demetrius X. , 228 AD2d 804 [3d Dept 1996]; see also Hollenbeck v Boivert , 330 F Supp 2d 324, 328 [SD NY 2004] [court noted prior consent orde

2007There are few reported New York cases where suspended judgments were granted after findings of neglect under Family Court Act § 1053 5 (Matter of Melinda D., 31 AD3d 24 [2d Dept 2006]; Matter of Dana XX., 28 AD3d 1025 [3d Dept 2006]; Matter of Thomas JJ., 14 AD3d 953 [3d Dept 2005]; Matter of Frank Y., 11 AD3d 740 [3d Dept 2004]; Matter of Ziaire M., 309 AD2d 938 [2d Dept 2003]; Matter of Thelonius BB., 299 AD2d 775 [3d Dept 2002]; Matter of Demetrius X., 228 AD2d 804 [3d Dept 1996]; see also Hollenbeck v Boivert, 330 F Supp 2d 324, 328 [SD NY 2004] [court noted prior consent order of suspende

2007There are few reported New York cases where suspended judgments were granted after findings of neglect under Family Court Act § 1053 [FN5] ( Matter of Melinda D. , 31 AD3d 24 [2d Dept 2006]; Matter of Dana XX. , 28 AD3d 1025 [3d Dept 2006]; Matter of Thomas JJ. , 14 AD3d 953 [3d Dept 2005]; Matter of Frank Y. , 11 AD3d 740 [3d Dept 2004]; Matter of Ziaire M. , 309 AD2d 938 [2d Dept 2003]; Matter of Thelonius BB. , 299 AD2d 775 [3d Dept 2002]; Matter of Demetrius X. , 228 AD2d 804 [3d Dept 1996]; see also Hollenbeck v Boivert , 330 F Supp 2d 324, 328 [SD NY 2004] [court noted prior consent orde

2007There are few reported New York cases where suspended judgments were granted after findings of neglect under Family Court Act § 1053 5 (Matter of Melinda D., 31 AD3d 24 [2d Dept 2006]; Matter of Dana XX., 28 AD3d 1025 [3d Dept 2006]; Matter of Thomas JJ., 14 AD3d 953 [3d Dept 2005]; Matter of Frank Y., 11 AD3d 740 [3d Dept 2004]; Matter of Ziaire M., 309 AD2d 938 [2d Dept 2003]; Matter of Thelonius BB., 299 AD2d 775 [3d Dept 2002]; Matter of Demetrius X., 228 AD2d 804 [3d Dept 1996]; see also Hollenbeck v Boivert, 330 F Supp 2d 324, 328 [SD NY 2004] [court noted prior consent order of suspende

2007There are few reported New York cases where suspended judgments were granted after findings of neglect under Family Court Act § 1053 [FN5] ( Matter of Melinda D. , 31 AD3d 24 [2d Dept 2006]; Matter of Dana XX. , 28 AD3d 1025 [3d Dept 2006]; Matter of Thomas JJ. , 14 AD3d 953 [3d Dept 2005]; Matter of Frank Y. , 11 AD3d 740 [3d Dept 2004]; Matter of Ziaire M. , 309 AD2d 938 [2d Dept 2003]; Matter of Thelonius BB. , 299 AD2d 775 [3d Dept 2002]; Matter of Demetrius X. , 228 AD2d 804 [3d Dept 1996]; see also Hollenbeck v Boivert , 330 F Supp 2d 324, 328 [SD NY 2004] [court noted prior consent orde

2007There are few reported New York cases where suspended judgments were granted after findings of neglect under Family Court Act § 1053 5 (Matter of Melinda D., 31 AD3d 24 [2d Dept 2006]; Matter of Dana XX., 28 AD3d 1025 [3d Dept 2006]; Matter of Thomas JJ., 14 AD3d 953 [3d Dept 2005]; Matter of Frank Y., 11 AD3d 740 [3d Dept 2004]; Matter of Ziaire M., 309 AD2d 938 [2d Dept 2003]; Matter of Thelonius BB., 299 AD2d 775 [3d Dept 2002]; Matter of Demetrius X., 228 AD2d 804 [3d Dept 1996]; see also Hollenbeck v Boivert, 330 F Supp 2d 324, 328 [SD NY 2004] [court noted prior consent order of suspende

2007There are few reported New York cases where suspended judgments were granted after findings of neglect under Family Court Act § 1053 [FN5] ( Matter of Melinda D. , 31 AD3d 24 [2d Dept 2006]; Matter of Dana XX. , 28 AD3d 1025 [3d Dept 2006]; Matter of Thomas JJ. , 14 AD3d 953 [3d Dept 2005]; Matter of Frank Y. , 11 AD3d 740 [3d Dept 2004]; Matter of Ziaire M. , 309 AD2d 938 [2d Dept 2003]; Matter of Thelonius BB. , 299 AD2d 775 [3d Dept 2002]; Matter of Demetrius X. , 228 AD2d 804 [3d Dept 1996]; see also Hollenbeck v Boivert , 330 F Supp 2d 324, 328 [SD NY 2004] [court noted prior consent orde

2007There are few reported New York cases where suspended judgments were granted after findings of neglect under Family Court Act § 1053 5 (Matter of Melinda D., 31 AD3d 24 [2d Dept 2006]; Matter of Dana XX., 28 AD3d 1025 [3d Dept 2006]; Matter of Thomas JJ., 14 AD3d 953 [3d Dept 2005]; Matter of Frank Y., 11 AD3d 740 [3d Dept 2004]; Matter of Ziaire M., 309 AD2d 938 [2d Dept 2003]; Matter of Thelonius BB., 299 AD2d 775 [3d Dept 2002]; Matter of Demetrius X., 228 AD2d 804 [3d Dept 1996]; see also Hollenbeck v Boivert, 330 F Supp 2d 324, 328 [SD NY 2004] [court noted prior consent order of suspende

2007There are few reported New York cases where suspended judgments were granted after findings of neglect under Family Court Act § 1053 [FN5] ( Matter of Melinda D. , 31 AD3d 24 [2d Dept 2006]; Matter of Dana XX. , 28 AD3d 1025 [3d Dept 2006]; Matter of Thomas JJ. , 14 AD3d 953 [3d Dept 2005]; Matter of Frank Y. , 11 AD3d 740 [3d Dept 2004]; Matter of Ziaire M. , 309 AD2d 938 [2d Dept 2003]; Matter of Thelonius BB. , 299 AD2d 775 [3d Dept 2002]; Matter of Demetrius X. , 228 AD2d 804 [3d Dept 1996]; see also Hollenbeck v Boivert , 330 F Supp 2d 324, 328 [SD NY 2004] [court noted prior consent orde

2007There are few reported New York cases where suspended judgments were granted after findings of neglect under Family Court Act § 1053 5 (Matter of Melinda D., 31 AD3d 24 [2d Dept 2006]; Matter of Dana XX., 28 AD3d 1025 [3d Dept 2006]; Matter of Thomas JJ., 14 AD3d 953 [3d Dept 2005]; Matter of Frank Y., 11 AD3d 740 [3d Dept 2004]; Matter of Ziaire M., 309 AD2d 938 [2d Dept 2003]; Matter of Thelonius BB., 299 AD2d 775 [3d Dept 2002]; Matter of Demetrius X., 228 AD2d 804 [3d Dept 1996]; see also Hollenbeck v Boivert, 330 F Supp 2d 324, 328 [SD NY 2004] [court noted prior consent order of suspende

2007There are few reported New York cases where suspended judgments were granted after findings of neglect under Family Court Act § 1053 [FN5] ( Matter of Melinda D. , 31 AD3d 24 [2d Dept 2006]; Matter of Dana XX. , 28 AD3d 1025 [3d Dept 2006]; Matter of Thomas JJ. , 14 AD3d 953 [3d Dept 2005]; Matter of Frank Y. , 11 AD3d 740 [3d Dept 2004]; Matter of Ziaire M. , 309 AD2d 938 [2d Dept 2003]; Matter of Thelonius BB. , 299 AD2d 775 [3d Dept 2002]; Matter of Demetrius X. , 228 AD2d 804 [3d Dept 1996]; see also Hollenbeck v Boivert , 330 F Supp 2d 324, 328 [SD NY 2004] [court noted prior consent orde

2007There are few reported New York cases where suspended judgments were granted after findings of neglect under Family Court Act § 1053 5 (Matter of Melinda D., 31 AD3d 24 [2d Dept 2006]; Matter of Dana XX., 28 AD3d 1025 [3d Dept 2006]; Matter of Thomas JJ., 14 AD3d 953 [3d Dept 2005]; Matter of Frank Y., 11 AD3d 740 [3d Dept 2004]; Matter of Ziaire M., 309 AD2d 938 [2d Dept 2003]; Matter of Thelonius BB., 299 AD2d 775 [3d Dept 2002]; Matter of Demetrius X., 228 AD2d 804 [3d Dept 1996]; see also Hollenbeck v Boivert, 330 F Supp 2d 324, 328 [SD NY 2004] [court noted prior consent order of suspende

2007There are few reported New York cases where suspended judgments were granted after findings of neglect under Family Court Act § 1053 [FN5] ( Matter of Melinda D. , 31 AD3d 24 [2d Dept 2006]; Matter of Dana XX. , 28 AD3d 1025 [3d Dept 2006]; Matter of Thomas JJ. , 14 AD3d 953 [3d Dept 2005]; Matter of Frank Y. , 11 AD3d 740 [3d Dept 2004]; Matter of Ziaire M. , 309 AD2d 938 [2d Dept 2003]; Matter of Thelonius BB. , 299 AD2d 775 [3d Dept 2002]; Matter of Demetrius X. , 228 AD2d 804 [3d Dept 1996]; see also Hollenbeck v Boivert , 330 F Supp 2d 324, 328 [SD NY 2004] [court noted prior consent orde

2006The Second Department in Matter of Jonathan M. ( 295 AD2d 513 [2d Dept 2002]) held that the Family Court erred in issuing the dispositional order without first holding a dispositional hearing.

2006The Second Department in Matter of Jonathan M. ( 295 AD2d 513 [2d Dept 2002]) held that the Family Court erred in issuing the dispositional order without first holding a dispositional hearing.

2023For example, a person legally responsible for the care of a child has the right to have the child released to him or her at the conclusion of a dispositional hearing ( see Matter of Jasmine N. , 15 AD3d 491 ), the right to have an order of protection issued on his or her behalf ( see Family Ct Act § 1056[1][a]), the right to be notified if the child is taken into custody by the police ( see id. § 305.2[3]; Matter of Arthur O. , 55 AD3d 1019, 1021 ), and the right to seek the return of a child to his or her care pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 ( see Matter of Kavon A. , 192 AD3d at 1097-109

2023For example, a person legally responsible for the care of a child has the right to have the child released to him or her at the conclusion of a dispositional hearing ( see Matter of Jasmine N. , 15 AD3d 491 ), the right to have an order of protection issued on his or her behalf ( see Family Ct Act § 1056[1][a]), the right to be notified if the child is taken into custody by the police ( see id. § 305.2[3]; Matter of Arthur O. , 55 AD3d 1019, 1021 ), and the right to seek the return of a child to his or her care pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 ( see Matter of Kavon A. , 192 AD3d at 1097-109

2023For example, a person legally responsible for the care of a child has the right to have the child released to him or her at the conclusion of a dispositional hearing ( see Matter of Jasmine N. , 15 AD3d 491 ), the right to have an order of protection issued on his or her behalf ( see Family Ct Act § 1056[1][a]), the right to be notified if the child is taken into custody by the police ( see id. § 305.2[3]; Matter of Arthur O. , 55 AD3d 1019, 1021 ), and the right to seek the return of a child to his or her care pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 ( see Matter of Kavon A. , 192 AD3d at 1097-109

2020However, except in limited circumstances not applicable here, the court may, at any time prior to the entering of a finding that the respondent is a juvenile delinquent, "order that the proceeding be adjourned in contemplation of dismissal.' An adjournment in contemplation of dismissal is an adjournment of the proceeding, for a period not to exceed six months, with a view to ultimate dismissal of the petition in furtherance of justice" (Family Ct Act § 315.3[1]). " The Family Court has broad discretion in determining whether to adjourn a proceeding in contemplation of dismissal'" ( Matter of N

2020However, except in limited circumstances not applicable here, the court may, at any time prior to the entering of a finding that the respondent is a juvenile delinquent, "order that the proceeding be adjourned in contemplation of dismissal.' An adjournment in contemplation of dismissal is an adjournment of the proceeding, for a period not to exceed six months, with a view to ultimate dismissal of the petition in furtherance of justice" (Family Ct Act § 315.3[1]). " The Family Court has broad discretion in determining whether to adjourn a proceeding in contemplation of dismissal'" ( Matter of N

2015“An adjudication at the conclusion of a dispositional hearing must be based on a preponderance of the evidence” (Family Ct Act § 350.3 [2]). *1250 Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court properly received hearsay evidence at the dispositional hearing, as such evidence was material and relevant (see Matter of Jaquan P., 15 AD3d 664 [2005]).

2015Recently, in Matter of State of New York v Donald DD. ( 24 NY3d 174 [2014]), the Court of Appeals noted that paraphilia NOS “is a controversial diagnosis,” and that it had not yet decided “the question that would be decided at a Frye hearing: whether the diagnosis of paraphilia NOS . . . has received general acceptance in the psychiatric community” (id. at 186-187).

2010In contrast to Criminal Procedure Law § 170.55 (1), which provides that a local criminal court may grant an ACD prior to the entry of a plea or a verdict, in a juvenile delinquency proceeding an ACD may be granted at any time, including at the conclusion of a dispositional hearing, so long as the court has not adjudicated the respondent to be a juvenile delinquent pursuant to Family Court Act § 352.1 (1) (see Matter of Edwin L. at 601-602; Matter of Janay E, 11 AD3d 697 [2004]; Matter of Melissa VV., 26 AD3d 682, 683 [2006]). 4 Where there is cause to believe that a juvenile has violated one o

2005Family Court Act § 1052 (a) (ii) provides that at the conclusion of a dispositional hearing the court shall enter an order of disposition “releasing the child to the custody of his parents or other person legally responsible.” Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court did not err in releasing the child to her maternal aunt who was an “other person legally responsible” under Family Court Act § 1054 (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [g]; Matter of Yolanda D., 88 NY2d 790 [1996]).

2005Although the court erred in failing to include in the dispositional order the grounds for its findings with respect thereto (see Family Ct Act § 1052 [b] [i]), this technical error was harmless, given the extent to which the court set forth its reasons on the record and the lack of prejudice to the father by the court’s failure to set forth these reasons in the dispositional order (see CPLR 2001; Matter of Jessica D., 208 AD2d 626 [1994]; Matter of Rachel G., 185 AD2d 382 [1992]).

2005Although the court erred in failing to include in the dispositional order the grounds for its findings with respect thereto (see Family Ct Act § 1052 [b] [i]), this technical error was harmless, given the extent to which the court set forth its reasons on the record and the lack of prejudice to the father by the court’s failure to set forth these reasons in the dispositional order (see CPLR 2001; Matter of Jessica D., 208 AD2d 626 [1994]; Matter of Rachel G., 185 AD2d 382 [1992]).

2005This statute has been held constitutional In the Matter of Julies R. 250 AD2d 855 (2d Dept 1998); In the Matter of Amanda "RR," 230 AD2d 451 (3d Dept 1997); In re Devon AA. , 7 AD3 845 (3d Dept 2004); and In the Matter of Tristan W. 258 AD2d 585 (2d Dept 1999).