New York Consolidated Laws
N.Y. Social Services Law § 392 (2026)
Services for relative and non-relative kinship caregivers
✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NY-LEGnysenate.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 392. Services for relative and non-relative kinship caregivers. 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, when a local social services district is in contact with a relative or non-relative kinship caregiver or a suitable person who the district has approached about being a kinship caregiver, such district shall provide written information as described in subdivision two of this section to such caregivers or prospective suitable persons. Such information shall also be made available through the website of both the office and the district and by other appropriate means in a manner accessible to relatives and non-relatives caring for children outside of the foster care system. 2. Such information shall include but not be limited to: a. information relating to child only grants, including but not limited to, how to apply for child only grants; b. information about how to become a kinship foster parent and other options for care; and c. information on how to contact the department of family assistance kinship programs and any resources funded through or operating in the local social services district for relative and non-relative kinship caregivers, including those that provide supportive services for all relative and non-relative kinship caregivers in the district.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: In re Michael B., 604 N.E.2d 122 (N.Y. 1992).
In re Michael B., 604 N.E.2d 122 (N.Y. 1992). “The biological father (appellant) on one side, *304 and respondent foster parents (joined by respondent Law Guardian) on the other, each contend that a custody determination in their favor is in the best interest of the child, as that term is used in Social Services Law § 392…”
Matter of Tyriek W., 652 N.E.2d 168 (N.Y. 1995). “Social Services Law § 392 provides for judicial review of the status of children in foster care at 18-month intervals.”
Marylou L. v. Tenecha L., 182 Misc. 2d 457 (N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. 1999). “) This interpretation also is consistent with previous judicial construction of Social Services Law § 392, which is similar to the new permanency hearing statute.”
In re Curtis N., 288 A.D.2d 774 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2001). “1 By petitions filed in June 1999, petitioner sought extension of the placement of the children for 12 months (see, Family Ct Act § 1057) and review of the children’s foster care status (see, Social Services Law § 392). 2 After several hearings at which respondent was not…”
Org. of Foster Familes for Equality & Reform v. Dumpson, 418 F. Supp. 277 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). “" Following the hearing, an order must be entered incorporating one of four stated dispositional alternatives: that the child be continued in foster care, that he be returned to his natural parents, that proceedings be instituted legally to free him for adoption or, if legally…”
In re Lily R., 283 A.D.2d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2001). “(Agency), to file a petition for foster care review pursuant to Social Services Law § 392, and in denying the motion of the intervenors, the proposed adoptive parents, to dismiss the foster care review petition.”
Edward S. v. Moon, 7 A.D.3d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2004). “itioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 8, for an order of protection, (7) from an order of said court, entered May 4, 2001, which, inter alia, denied petitioner future notice of certain foster care review proceedings, and (8) from an order of…”
In re Tiffany A., 242 A.D.2d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1997). “reached the Court of Appeals, the issue to be decided was the scope of the best interest analysis “in the context of temporary care placements” pursuant to Social Services Law § 392 (6) (Matter of Michael B.”
In re Chance Jahmel B., 187 Misc. 2d 626 (N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. 2001). “It may also provide a sound argument at a permanency hearing (Family Ct Act § 1055 [b]; Social Services Law § 392 [1] [e]; [5-a]) for the development of an individualized service plan including reasonable accommodations for a disabled parent whose goal is to have his or her…”
Comm'r of Soc. Servs. ex rel. Riddle v. Rapp, 127 Misc. 2d 835 (N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. 1985). “) However, Family Court Act § 1055, unlike Social Services Law § 392, makes no provision for the court to review the conditions of the Commissioner’s placement plan.”
Bd. of Educ. v. Christa Constr., Inc., 608 N.E.2d 756 (N.Y. 1993). “— In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 392 involving a determination of custody of a child voluntarily placed in foster care but not freed for adoption, the Appellate Division erroneously relied on Social Services Law § 392 (6) (b) in awarding custody of the child…”
In re Enrique R., 126 A.D.2d 169 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1987). “Social Services Law § 392 (9) authorizes the court to direct an agency "to undertake diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship when it finds such efforts will not be detrimental to the best interests of the child.”
N.Y. Social Services Law § 392(10): 1 case
Org. of Foster Familes for Equality & Reform v. Dumpson, 418 F. Supp. 277 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). “" Following the hearing, an order must be entered incorporating one of four stated dispositional alternatives: that the child be continued in foster care, that he be returned to his natural parents, that proceedings be instituted legally to free him for adoption or, if legally…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.