Matter of Shaiyah H. (Shai-Janae H.)
Docket 302 CAF 25-00820
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Family
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02565
- Docket
- 302 CAF 25-00820
Appeal from an order of Family Court (Monroe County) denying a § 1028 application for return of a child after temporary removal in a Family Court Act article 10 proceeding.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed Family Court's order continuing custody of the child with Monroe County Department of Human Services. The mother had sought return of her child under Family Court Act § 1028 after a temporary removal. The court found petitioner proved that returning the child would present an imminent risk to the child's life or health because the mother suffers from untreated, severe mental health conditions, experiences frequent violent visions that sometimes include the child, lacks insight, does not take medication or seek therapy, and engages in unsafe behavior tied to those visions. The appellate court found a sound and substantial basis in the record for that determination.
Issues Decided
- Whether Family Court properly denied the mother's Family Court Act § 1028 application seeking return of her child after temporary removal
- Whether the petitioner established that returning the child would pose an imminent risk to the child's life or health
- Whether the imminent risk could be mitigated by reasonable efforts to avoid continued removal
Court's Reasoning
The court applied the standard that a § 1028 return application must be denied if returning the child would present an imminent risk to life or health. The record showed the mother had untreated, severe mental health conditions, frequent visions involving murder and sometimes the child, lacked insight, failed to take medication or engage in therapy, and acted on intrusive thoughts, creating unsafe behaviors. Given those facts, the court concluded reasonable efforts could not mitigate the imminent risk, and credited the hearing court's credibility findings as having a sound and substantial basis.
Authorities Cited
- Family Court Act § 1028
- Nicholson v. Scoppetta3 NY3d 357 (2004)
- Matter of Gavin G. [Carla G.]165 AD3d 1258 (2d Dept 2018)
Parties
- Petitioner
- Monroe County Department of Human Services
- Respondent
- Shai-Janae H.
- Attorney
- Julie Cianca, Public Defender (Sabrina A. Bremer of counsel)
- Attorney
- Brendon S. Fleming, Acting County Attorney (Mary Whiteside of counsel)
- Attorney
- Maureen N. Polen, Attorney for the Child
- Judge
- Alecia J. Mazzo
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-24
- Family Court order date
- 2025-04-18
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult counsel about further appellate options
If the mother wishes to continue challenging the decision, she should promptly consult her attorney about seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals or other appropriate post‑decision remedies and note applicable deadlines.
- 2
Engage in recommended mental health treatment
Because the court relied on untreated mental health conditions, the mother should pursue psychiatric evaluation, follow recommended treatment, and document compliance to support future reunification efforts.
- 3
Work with child welfare agency
Cooperate with the Monroe County Department of Human Services to comply with service plans, visitation arrangements, and any requirements for reunification to address the court's safety concerns.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision to keep the child in the custody of the child protective agency because returning the child to the mother would present an imminent risk to the child's life or health.
- Why was the child not returned to the mother?
- Evidence at the hearing showed the mother had untreated, severe mental illness, experienced violent visions including the child, did not take medication or engage in therapy, and behaved in ways that placed the child at imminent risk.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The child, the mother (respondent-appellant), and the Monroe County Department of Human Services are directly affected; the child remains in agency custody.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Yes, the mother may seek further appellate review to the Court of Appeals if permitted, but the Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court on the record, making further review discretionary and subject to applicable rules and time limits.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Matter of Shaiyah H. (Shai-Janae H.) - 2026 NY Slip Op 02565 Matter of Shaiyah H. (Shai-Janae H.) 2026 NY Slip Op 02565 April 24, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department IN THE MATTER OF SHAIYAH H. -------------------------------------------- MONROE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; v SHAI-JANAE H., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on April 24, 2026 302 CAF 25-00820 Present: Lindley, J.P., Curran, Ogden, Nowak, And Delconte, JJ. JULIE CIANCA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (SABRINA A. BREMER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. BRENDON S. FLEMING, ACTING COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (MARY WHITESIDE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. MAUREEN N. POLEN, ROCHESTER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD. Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Alecia J. Mazzo, J.), entered April 18, 2025, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order continued the custody of the subject child with petitioner. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, respondent mother appeals from an order that denied her Family Court Act § 1028 application seeking the return of her child to her care and custody following her temporary removal pursuant to a prior order. We affirm. A parent's application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 for the return of a child who has been temporarily removed shall be granted unless Family Court finds, upon a hearing, that "the return presents an imminent risk to the child's life or health" (Family Ct Act § 1028 [a]; see Matter of Nyomi P. [Imeisha P.] , 224 AD3d 906, 906 [2d Dept 2024], lv dismissed 41 NY3d 1008 [2024]; Matter of Mikayla T. [Jyranda R.] , 199 AD3d 1009, 1010 [2d Dept 2021]). "A credibility assessment of a hearing court is accorded considerable deference on appeal" ( Matter of Gavin G. [Carla G.] , 165 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2d Dept 2018]), and the court's determination will not be disturbed if it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Junny B. [Homere B.] , 200 AD3d 687, 688 [2d Dept 2021]; Matter of Zaniyah R.-T. [Wanda R.] , 196 AD3d 584, 585 [2d Dept 2021]). In making its determination, the court "must weigh, in the factual setting before it, whether the imminent risk to the child can be mitigated by reasonable efforts to avoid removal," and "balance that risk against the harm removal might bring, and it must determine factually which course is in the child's best interests" ( Nicholson v Scoppetta , 3 NY3d 357, 378 [2004]; see Nyomi P. , 224 AD3d at 907). The child protective services agency bears the burden of establishing that the child would be at imminent risk and therefore should remain in its custody ( see Matter of Skkyy M.R. [Justin R.—Desanta C.] , 206 AD3d 660, 661 [2d Dept 2022]; Matter of Chase P. [Maureen Q.] , 199 AD3d 807, 809 [2d Dept 2021]). Here, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court's determination that the return of the child to the mother would present an imminent risk to the child, and that the risk could not be mitigated by reasonable efforts to avoid removal, in light of the testimony at the hearing as to the mother's untreated, severe mental health conditions. Petitioner established that the mother suffered from frequent "visions" that predominantly focused on murder and also—at times—included the child; that the mother lacked insight into her mental health conditions; that the mother failed to take medication for her mental health conditions or to seek mental health therapy; and that the mother followed her "visions" and intrusive thoughts, thereby engaging in unsafe behaviors that placed the child at imminent risk of harm ( see Matter of Jurenny M.-J. [Kelley M.] ., 235 AD3d 980, 982 [2d Dept 2025]; Gavin G. , 165 AD3d at 1259; Matter of Alex A.E. [Adel E.] , 103 AD3d 721, 722 [2d Dept 2013]; see also Matter of Ayanna O. [Amanda M.] , 233 AD3d 1418, 1420-1421 [3d Dept 2024]). Entered: April 24, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn