In re Michael B.
590 N.Y.S.2d 60, 604 N.E.2d 122, 80 N.Y.2d 299 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A biological parent has a superior right to the care and custody of their child over foster parents unless the parent is proven unfit. In a foster care review hearing under Social Services Law § 392(6), the 'best interest of the child' analysis is not a direct comparison between the biological and foster parents, and the court cannot award permanent legal custody to foster parents under § 392(6)(b).
Facts:
- In July 1985, Michael B. was born with a positive toxicology for cocaine and was voluntarily placed in foster care from the hospital by his mother.
- At three months old, Michael was placed in the foster home of Maggie W. L., who was told by the agency that it was a 'preadoptive' placement.
- Michael's biological father, a long-time alcohol and substance abuser, was identified, and in late 1987, he entered a residential drug rehabilitation program and began visiting Michael.
- In 1988, the father agreed to a finding of permanent neglect with a 12-month suspended judgment, conditioned on him remaining drug-free, obtaining employment and housing, and taking parenting classes.
- During the suspended judgment period, the father visited Michael infrequently.
- By the end of the suspended judgment in 1989, a court found that the father had substantially complied with the conditions, though he was unemployed.
- Michael lived continuously with his foster family for over five years, from late 1985 until December 1990, and formed a strong psychological bond with them.
- During the pendency of the appeal to the state's highest court, the father admitted to neglecting his other children due to alcohol and cocaine abuse, resulting in their removal from his home.
Procedural Posture:
- Catholic Child Care Society filed a petition in Family Court to terminate the parental rights of Michael B.'s biological parents.
- Following proceedings involving a suspended judgment, the Family Court found the father had substantially complied with court-ordered conditions and directed that Michael be discharged to his custody.
- The foster parents and Law Guardian appealed to the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court), which reversed and remanded for a 'best interests' hearing, citing 'extraordinary circumstances'.
- On remand, the Family Court conducted the hearing and again awarded custody to the biological father.
- The foster parents and Law Guardian appealed to the Appellate Division a second time. The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court and awarded legal custody of Michael to the foster parents.
- The biological father (appellant) was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York (the state's highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'best interest of the child' standard under Social Services Law § 392(6) permit a court to conduct a direct comparison between a fit biological parent and foster parents and award permanent custody to the foster parents?
Opinions:
Majority - Kaye, J.
No. The 'best interest of the child' standard under Social Services Law § 392(6) does not permit a court to conduct a direct comparison between a fit biological parent and foster parents, nor does the statute authorize an award of permanent custody to foster parents. The statutory scheme for voluntary foster care prioritizes a biological parent's superior right to custody unless the parent is proven unfit. The objective is to reunite the family, and using the emotional bond a child forms in temporary foster care as grounds for a comparative hearing against the biological parent undermines this objective. Unlike a private custody dispute governed by common law principles like in Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys, a foster care review requires the court to weigh past and continued foster care against discharge to the biological parent, with parental fitness as the primary factor. Furthermore, Social Services Law § 392(6)(b), which allows placement with a 'suitable person,' is intended to remove a child from the foster care system by placing them with relatives or other third parties, not to award permanent custody to the current foster parents. Due to new evidence of the father's unfitness, the case must be remitted for a new hearing.
Concurring - Bellacosa, J.
No, because Social Services Law § 392(6)(b) was improperly used to award permanent custody to foster parents. While I agree with the result, the majority's 'best interest' analysis is too constricted and relegates the principles of Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys to secondary importance. In cases with such extraordinary circumstances—prolonged separation and a parent with a significant history of substance abuse—courts should have the flexibility to conduct a broad, 'pure' best interests hearing that compares the biological parent and the foster parents. The common-law wisdom of Bennett should supplement the statutory framework, not be subordinated to it, to allow courts a wider range of power to act in a child's best interest.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'best interest of the child' standard within the statutory context of New York's foster care system, reinforcing the primacy of parental rights. It establishes that a fit biological parent's right to custody cannot be overcome by a simple comparative analysis of who might be a 'better' parent, thereby protecting the temporary and rehabilitative purpose of voluntary foster care. The court distinguishes the broad common-law 'best interest' test from Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys (for private disputes) from the more constrained, statutorily-defined test for foster care reviews. By narrowly interpreting Social Services Law § 392(6)(b), the ruling prevents foster parents from using periodic review hearings as a direct path to permanent legal custody, preserving the statutory routes of either family reunification or termination of parental rights followed by adoption.
