WPCS IV9ƿ%ph?JZ{ E1ɮ+P-Ϊm2ڰ3-WLsZF@|}_ MWoo[XA9e-u_2S4͛ :\c`ZJjwetzdG}->oh^m} #NS5o &@ND/x^8'o_ Q:>[cDp h4 cHxNvcB/;5Ndxj^QHs145O][7JSX9+L::M!}_t-ޅyfNcBQ $pwlC@]=d:|I#K>se/`kIOtZK HZ 3TBL18L+ laqsx``ӕ4r)LEFLCw|]}Ua, ?d,l#U F % 0: UF7 b }  0V ^ n wz 4~   m  U8 1 72 1u 72( 0sZ 1 72T 0~ 0DHH[8 0U 00 0 0 0 0 0 0y 0P 0C$ 0g 0> 0! 0! 0" 0|# 0D$ 0 % 0@% 0 & 0& 0' 0|( 0G) 0* 0* 0+ 00S, 0<, 0, 0>}- 0v- 0`1. 0`. 0`. 0`Q/ 0`/ 080 0I0 021 0M1 0:I2 0Y2 0_2 0 ;3 0jE4 05 B*37 D/]7 D+7 07 D/;9 0j9 068: 0n: 0:v; 0^; 0<< 1eJ<U6<U><U*#=sM=M=?BDN^F`F B\HnyHyHe LLMM NP`P2MR\\AD01\PlainPaper0<4 9Z+.Courier New RegularX($USUS.,.Courier New Regular- - 'USUS.,  _@  1  ڀ(#No.113(.3$ !USUS.,  /q]1 e|b/T.:i+003|x"U <4 9Z+ Courier New (CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(K$2  1  .3  0  (CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0    ($USUS.,    3    _ԀTheinjunctionwasstayedforsixmonthstopermitACSto  attemptreformonitsown,freeofthecourt'sinvolvement,and  toallowforanappeal.Thereafter,theCityandACSappealed, \ challengingtheDistrictCourt'sdetermination.TheSecond 2 CircuitdeniedtheCity'srequestforanadditionalstaypending X appeal. > ($USUS.,    4    _ԀChiefJudgeWalkerdissented,concludingthatthe  injunctionshouldbevacatedbecausetheevidencedidnotsupport  theDistrictCourt'sfindingsunderpinningtheinjunction.In \ hisview,theDistrictCourt'scentralfactualfindingthatACS 2 hadapolicyofregularlyseparatingbatteredmothersand X childrenunnecessarilywas"simplyunsustainable"(id.at177). . ($USUS.,    6    _ԀTheLegislaturehasrecognizedthis"quandary"thata  victimofdomesticviolenceencounters(SenateMemInSupp,2002  _McKinney_'sSessionLawsofNY,at1821).Toavoidpunitive \ responsesfromchildprotectiveservicesagencies,the 2 Legislatureattemptedtoincreaseawarenessofchildprotective X agenciesofthedynamicsofdomesticviolenceanditsimpacton . childprotectionbyamendingtheSocialServicesLawtomandate   comprehensivedomesticviolencetrainingforchildprotective   servicesworkers.(id.).*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKX<6X9`(Courier NewKSY\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KX<6X9`(Courier NewKSY\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KX<6X9`(Courier NewKSY\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7M(X7  ?Z%2A`Arial?  SY\  `&Times New RomanS7N(X7&  d dL)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7P(X7  ?Z%2A`Arial?  SY\  `&Times New RomanS7N(X7L)2dxd0KS.SampleKX<6X9`(Courier NewKSY\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKX<6X9`(Courier NewKSY\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  &'()*+,- 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial i ($USUS.,    2    _ԀTheDistrictCourtcitedthetestimonyofachild  protectivemanagerthatitwascommonpracticeindomestic  violencecasesforACStowaitafewdaysbeforegoingtocourt \ afterremovingachildbecause"afterafewdaysofthechildren 2 beinginfostercare,themotherwillusuallyagreetoACS's X  conditionsfortheirreturnwithoutthematterevengoingto N court"(203FSupp2dat170).  ($USUS.,    8    _ԀUndersection1028,aparentorpersonlegally  responsibleforthecareofachildmaypetitionthecourtfor  returnofthechildafterremoval,ifheorshewasnotpresent \ orgivenanadequateopportunitytobepresentatthesection 2 1027hearing.Thefactorstobeconsideredwhenreturninga X childremovedinanemergencymirrorthoseconsideredinan . initialdeterminationundersections1027and1022best   interests,imminentrisk,andreasonableeffortstoavoid   removal.  ($USUS.,    1    _Ԁ"ACS"includesallnamedCitydefendants,includingthe  CityofNewYork.ApartfromdefendantJohnJohnson  (CommissioneroftheStateOfficeofChildrenandFamily \ Services,whichoverseesACS),stateofficialsarenamedinthe 2 complaintwithrespecttotheassignedcounselportionofthe X case,whichisnotbeforeus.  ($USUS.,    5    _ԀWearenotaskedto,nordowe,applyouranswerstothe  trialrecord,thoughrecognizingthatintheinordinatelycomplex  humandilemmapresentedbydomesticviolenceinvolvingchildren, \ thelawmaybeeasiertostatethanapply.  ($USUS.,    9    _ԀTheordermuststatethecourt'sfindingswhichsupport  thenecessityofremoval,whethertheparentwaspresentatthe  hearing,whatnoticewasgiventotheparentofthehearingand \  underwhatcircumstancestheremovaltookplace(FamilyCtAct N 1027[b][_i_]). d d ($USUS.,    7    _ԀInTenebaumvWilliams(193F3d581[2dCir1999]),a  child'sparentsbroughtanactionpursuantto42USC1983  challengingtheNewYorkCityChildWelfareAdministration's \ removaloftheirfiveyearoldfromherkindergartenclassunder 2 theemergencyremovalprovisionofFamilyCourtAct1024and X takinghertotheemergencyroomwhereapediatriciananda . gynecologistexaminedherforsignsofpossiblesexualabuse.   Whentheyfoundnone,thechildwasreturnedtoherparents.The   SecondCircuitreversedtheDistrictCourt'sjudgmentin `  pertinentpartandheldthatajurycouldhaveconcludedthatthe 6   emergencyremovalforthemedicalexaminationviolatedthe  \  parents'andchild'sproceduraldueprocessrights,andthe  2  child'sFourthAmendmentrights.  ($USUS.,    10    _ԀTheLegislatureaddedtheseprovisionstosections1022  and1028aswell.  ($USUS.,    13    _ԀSection1026permitsthereturnofachildhome,without  courtorder,inacaseinvolvingneglect,whenanagency  determinesinitsdiscretionthatthereisnoimminentriskto \ thechild'shealthinsodoing(FamilyCtAct1026[a],[b]). 2 Iftheagencydoesnotreturnthechildforanyreason,the X agencymustfileapetitionforthwith,orwithinthreedaysif . goodcauseisshown(FamilyCtAct1026[c]).SDU_19  ($USUS.,    12    _ԀSection1022alsorequiresthatthechildbebrought  immediatelytoasocialservicesdepartment,thattheagencymake  everyreasonableefforttoinformtheparentwherethechildis \ andthattheagencygivewrittennoticetotheparentofthe 2 righttoapplytofamilycourtforreturnofthechild. ( ($USUS.,    11    _ԀTheordermuststatethecourt'sfindingsconcerningthe  necessityofremoval,whetherrespondentwaspresentatthe  hearingandwhatnoticewasgiven. !USUS.,  _8uXXdd8.eF:\APPS\DOCS\Clients\Nicholson\NY Court of Appeals\DECISION.10.26.04.wpdF:\APPS\DOCS\Clients\Nicholson\NYCourtof  Appeals\DECISION.10.26.04.wpd/       ` ================================================================= | . Thisopinionisuncorrectedandsubjecttorevisionbefore R  publicationintheNewYorkReports. (  ЄUSCOA,2No.113    SharwlineNicholson,&c.etal., \  ЀRespondents, 2  Ѐv. V  NicholasScoppetta,&c.,etal., ,  ЀAppellants.   p        NatWilliams,etal.,   ЀDefendants. `    AlanG.Krams,forappellants. 0   DavidJ.Lansner,forSubclassArespondents.    JudithWaksbergforSubclassBrespondents.    NationalCoalitionAgainstDomesticViolence,etal.; d NationalNetworktoEndDomesticViolence,Inc.,etal.;New : YorkStateCoalitionAgainstDomesticViolence,etal.; ^ PennsylvaniaCoalitionAgainstDomesticViolence,etal.;Legal 4 Momentum,etal.;TheAppellateAdvocacyNetwork,etal.;The   CenterforFamilyRepresentation,Inc.;NewYorkLegalAssistance  Group,etal.;WilburMcReynolds;OhioDomesticViolenceNetwork, h etal.;JosephL.Woolston,M.D.,etal.,amicicuriae. > KAYE,CHIEFJUDGE: !  ',X` XX' ` Inthisfederalclassaction,theUnitedStatesCourt "l" ofAppealsfortheSecondCircuithascertifiedthreequestions f$$ centeredonNewYork'sstatutoryschemeforchildprotective && proceedings.Theactionisbroughtonbehalfofmothersand 'p!( theirchildrenwhowereseparatedbecausethemotherhadsuffered j)#* domesticviolence,towhichthechildrenwereexposed,andthe +$, childrenwereforthatreasondeemedneglectedbyher. N _ ` InApril2000,SharwlineNicholson,onbehalfof  herselfandhertwochildren,broughtanactionpursuantto42  X USC1983,againsttheNewYorkCityAdministrationfor R  Children'sServices(ACS).^ #  1      ׀Theactionwaslaterconsolidated   withsimilarcomplaintsbySharleneTilletandEkaeteUdoh!the \  threenamedplaintiffmothers.PlaintiffsallegedthatACS,as V  amatterofpolicy,removedchildrenfrommotherswhowere   victimsofdomesticviolencebecause,asvictims,they"engaged `  indomesticviolence"andthatdefendantsremovedanddetained Z  childrenwithoutprobablecauseandwithoutdueprocessoflaw.  Thatpolicy,anditsimplementation--accordingtoplaintiff d mothers--constituted,amongotherwrongs,anunlawful ^ interferencewiththeirlibertyinterestinthecareandcustody   oftheirchildreninviolationoftheUnitedStatesConstitution. h  ` InAugust2001,theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfor b theEasternDistrictofNewYorkcertifiedtwosubclasses: !  batteredcustodialparents(SubclassA),andtheirchildren "l" (SubclassB)(NicholsonvWilliams,205FRD92,95,100[EDNY f$$ 2001]).Foreachplaintiff,atleastonegroundforremovalwas N thatthecustodialmotherhadbeenassaultedbyanintimate  partnerandfailedtoprotectthechildorchildrenfromexposure  X tothatdomesticviolence. R   ` InJanuary2002,theDistrictCourtgranteda   preliminaryinjunction,concludingthattheCity"maynot \  penalizeamother,nototherwiseunfit,whoisbatteredbyher V  partner,byseparatingherfromherchildren;normaychildrenbe   separatedfromthemother,ineffectvisitinguponthemthesins `  oftheirmother'sbatterer"(InreNicholson,181FSupp2d182, Z  188[EDNYJan.20,2002];seealsoNicholsonvWilliams,203F  Supp2d153[EDNYMar.18,2002][108pageelaborationof d groundsforinjunction]). ^  ` ThecourtfoundthatACSunnecessarily,routinely   chargedmotherswithneglectandremovedtheirchildrenwherethe h motherswhohadengagedinnoviolencethemselveshadbeenthe b victimsofdomesticviolence;thatACSdidsowithoutensuring !  thatthemotherhadaccesstotheservicessheneeded,withouta "l" courtorder,andwithoutreturningthesechildrenpromptlyafter f$$ beingorderedtodosobythecourt;[ #  2      ׀thatACScaseworkersand && casemanagerslackedadequatetrainingaboutdomesticviolence, N andtheirpracticewastoseparatemotherandchildwhenless  harmfulalternativeswereavailable;thattheagency'swritten  X policiesofferedcontradictoryguidanceornoguidanceatallon R  theseissues;andthatnoneofthereformplanssubmittedbyACS   couldreasonablyhavebeenexpectedtoresolvetheproblems \  withinthenextyear(203FSupp2dat228229). V   ` TheDistrictCourtconcludedthatACS'spracticesand   policiesviolatedboththesubstantivedueprocessrightsof `  mothersandchildrennottobeseparatedbythegovernmentunless Z  theparentisunfittocareforthechild,andtheirprocedural  dueprocessrights(181FSupp2dat185).Theinjunction,in d relevantpart,"prohibit[ed]ACSfromcarryingoutexparte ^ removals'solelybecausethemotheristhevictimofdomestic   violence,'orfromfilinganArticleTenpetitionseekingremoval h onthatbasis"(NicholsonvScoppetta,344F3d154,164[2dCir b 2003][internalcitationsomitted]).< #  3       !   `  Onappeal,theSecondCircuitheldthattheDistrict "l" CourthadnotabuseditsdiscretioninconcludingthatACS's N practiceofeffectingremovalsbasedonaparent'sfailureto  preventhisorherchildfromwitnessingdomesticviolence  X againsttheparentamountedtoapolicyorcustomofACS,thatin R  somecircumstancestheremovalsmayraiseseriousquestionsof   federalconstitutionallaw,andthattheallegedconstitutional \  violations,ifany,wereatleastplausiblyattributabletothe V  City(344F3dat165167,171176). #  4      ׀TheCourthesitated,   however,beforereachingtheconstitutionalquestions,believing `  thatresolutionofuncertainissuesofNewYorkstatutorylaw Z  wouldavoid,orsignificantlymodify,thesubstantialfederal  constitutionalissuespresented(id.at176). d  ` Giventhestrongpreferenceforavoidingunnecessary ^ constitutionaladjudication,theimportanceofchildprotection   toNewYorkStateandtheintegralpartNewYorkcourtsplayin h theremovalprocess,theSecondCircuit,bythreecertified b questions,chosetoputtheopenstatestatutorylawissuestous !   forresolution.Weacceptedcertification(1NY3d538[2003]), "l" andnowproceedtoanswerthosequestions._ #  5      ׀ N  @0 0  CertifiedQuestionNo.1:Neglect   ` ` "Doesthedefinitionofa'neglectedchild'  t underN.Y.FamilyCt.Act1012(f),(h)  J includeinstancesinwhichthesole n  allegationofneglectisthattheparentor D  otherpersonlegallyresponsibleforthe   child'scareallowsthechildtowitness    domesticabuseagainstthecaretaker?"$ x  ` `  ` Weunderstandthisquestiontoaskwhetheracourt r$  reviewinganArticle10petitionmayfindarespondentparent   responsibleforneglectbasedonevidenceoftwofactsonly:that |  theparenthasbeenthevictimofdomesticviolence,andthatthe v( childhasbeenexposedtothatviolence.Thatquestionmustbe " answeredinthenegative.Plainly,moreisrequiredfora  showingofneglectunderNewYorklawthanthefactthatachild z, wasexposedtodomesticabuseagainstthecaretaker.Answering & thequestionintheaffirmative,moreover,wouldreadan  unacceptablepresumptionintothestatute,contrarytoitsplain ~0 language. *!   ` FamilyCourtAct1012(f)isexplicitinidentifying "" theelementsthatmustbeshowntosupportafindingofneglect. $4$ Asrelevanthere,itdefinesa"neglectedchild"tomean: .&& ` ` "achildlessthaneighteenyearsofage(i) N whosephysical,mentaloremotionalcondition $ hasbeenimpairedorisinimminentdangerof  becomingimpairedasaresultofthefailure  ofhisparentorotherpersonlegally  X responsibleforhiscaretoexercisea | . minimumdegreeofcare... R  "(B)inprovidingthechildwithproper   supervisionorguardianship,byunreasonably    inflictingorallowingtobeinflictedharm, \  orasubstantialriskthereof,includingthe 2  inflictionofexcessivecorporalpunishment; V  orbymisusingadrugordrugs;orby ,  misusingalcoholicbeveragestotheextent   thathelosesselfcontrolofhisactions;or   byanyotheractsofasimilarlyserious `  naturerequiringtheaidofthecourt." 6 ` `  ` Thus,apartyseekingtoestablishneglectmustshow, 0 byapreponderanceoftheevidence(seeFamilyCtAct1046[b]  [i]),first,thatachild'sphysical,mentaloremotional : conditionhasbeenimpairedorisinimminentdangerofbecoming 4 impairedandsecond,thattheactualorthreatenedharmtothe  childisaconsequenceofthefailureoftheparentorcaretaker > toexerciseaminimumdegreeofcareinprovidingthechildwith 8  propersupervisionorguardianship.ThedraftersofArticle10 !! were"deeplyconcerned"thatanimprecisedefinitionofchild #B# neglectmightresultin"unwarrantedstateinterventioninto <%% privatefamilylife"(Besharov,PracticeCommentaries,McKinney's & ' ConsLawsofNY,Book29A,FamilyCtAct1012at320,[1999 (F") ed]). @*#+  ` Thefirststatutoryelementrequiresproofofactual +%- (orimminentdangerof)physical,emotionalormentalimpairment N tothechild(seeNassauCountyDept.ofSocialServs.onbehalf  ofDanteM.vDeniseJ.,87NY2d73,7879[1995]).This  X prerequisitetoafindingofneglectensuresthattheFamily R  Court,indecidingwhethertoauthorizestateintervention,will   focusonseriousharmorpotentialharmtothechild,notjuston \  whatmightbedeemedundesirableparentalbehavior."Imminent V  danger"reflectstheLegislature'sjudgmentthatafindingof   neglectmaybeappropriateevenwhenachildhasnotactually `  beenharmed;"imminentdangerofimpairmenttoachildisan Z  independentandseparategroundonwhichaneglectfindingmaybe  based"(DanteM.,87NY2dat79).Imminentdanger,however,must d benearorimpending,notmerelypossible. ^  ` Ineachcase,additionally,theremustbealinkor   causalconnectionbetweenthebasisfortheneglectpetitionand h thecircumstancesthatallegedlyproducethechild'simpairment b orimminentdangerofimpairment.InDanteM.,forexample,we !  heldthattheFamilyCourterredinconcludingthatanewborn's "l" positivetoxicologyforacontrolledsubstancealonewas f$$ sufficienttosupportafindingofneglectbecausethereport,in && andofitself,didnotprovethatthechildwasimpairedorin 'p!( imminentdangerofbecomingimpaired(87NY2dat79).We j)#* reasoned,"[r]elyingsolelyonapositivetoxicologyresultfora +$, neglectdeterminationfailstomakethenecessarycausative N connectiontoallthesurroundingcircumstancesthatmayormay  notproduceimpairmentorimminentriskofimpairmentinthe  X newbornchild"(id.).Thepositivetoxicologyreport,in R  conjunctionwithotherevidence--suchasthemother'shistoryof   inabilitytocareforherchildrenbecauseofherdruguse, \  testimonyofrelativesthatshewashighoncocaineduringher V  pregnancyandthemother'sfailuretotestifyattheneglect   hearing--supportedafindingofneglectandestablishedalink `  betweenthereportandphysicalimpairment. Z   ` Thecasesatbarconcern,inparticular,alleged  threatstothechild'semotional,ormental,health.Thestatute d specificallydefines"impairmentofemotionalhealth"and ^ "impairmentofmentaloremotionalcondition"toinclude   ` ` "astateofsubstantiallydiminished h psychologicalorintellectualfunctioningin > relationto,butnotlimitedto,suchfactors b asfailuretothrive,controlofaggressive 8  orselfdestructiveimpulses,abilityto !  thinkandreason,oractingoutor !! misbehavior,includingincorrigibility, "l" ungovernabilityorhabitualtruancy" #B# ` ` (FamilyCtAct1012[h]).UnderNewYorklaw,"suchimpairment <%% mustbeclearlyattributabletotheunwillingnessorinabilityof & ' therespondenttoexerciseaminimumdegreeofcaretowardthe (F") child"(id.).Here,theLegislaturerecognizedthatthesource @*#+ ofemotionalormentalimpairment--unlikephysicalinjurymaybe +%- murky,andthatitisunjusttofaultaparenttooreadily.The N Legislaturethereforespecifiedthatsuchimpairmentbe"clearly  attributable"totheparent'sfailuretoexercisetherequisite  X degreeofcare. R   ` Assumingthatactualorimminentdangertothechild   hasbeenshown,"neglect"alsorequiresproofoftheparent's \  failuretoexerciseaminimumdegreeofcare.AstheSecond V  Circuitobserved,"afundamentalinterpretivequestioniswhat   conductsatisfiesthebroad,tortlikephrase,'aminimumdegree `  ofcare.'TheCourtofAppealshasnotyetaddressedthat Z  question,whichwouldbecriticaltodefiningappropriate  parentalbehavior"(344F3dat169). d  ` "Minimumdegreeofcare"isa"baselineofpropercare ^ forchildrenthatallparents,regardlessoflifestyleorsocial   oreconomicposition,mustmeet"(Besharov,at326).Notably, h thestatutorytestis"minimumdegreeofcare"notmaximum,not b best,notidealandthefailuremustbeactual,notthreatened !  (seee.g.MatterofHofbauer,47NY2d648,656[1979] "l" [recognizing,inthecontextofmedicalneglect,thecourt'srole f$$ isnotassurrogateparentandtheinquiryisnotposedin && absolutetermsofwhethertheparenthasmadethe"right"or 'p!( "wrong"decision]). j)#*  ` Courtsmustevaluateparentalbehaviorobjectively: +$, wouldareasonableandprudentparenthavesoacted,orfailedto N act,underthecircumstancesthenandthereexisting(seeMatter  ofJessicaYY.,258AD2d743,744[3dDept1999]).Thestandard  X takesintoaccountthespecialvulnerabilitiesofthechild,even R  wheregeneralphysicalhealthisnotimplicated(seeMatterof   SayehR.,91NY2d306,315,317[1997][mother'sdecisionto \  demandimmediatereturnofhertraumatizedchildrenwithout V  regardtotheirneedforcounselingandrelatedservices"could   wellbefoundtorepresentpreciselythekindoffailure'to `  exerciseaminimumdegreeofcare'thatourneglectstatute Z  contemplates"]).Thus,whentheinquiryiswhetheramother!and  domesticviolencevictimfailedtoexerciseaminimumdegreeof d care,thefocusmustbeonwhethershehasmetthestandardof ^ thereasonableandprudentpersoninsimilarcircumstances.    ` AstheSubclassAmemberspointout,forabattered h motherandultimatelyforacourtwhatcourseofaction b constitutesaparent'sexerciseofa"minimumdegreeofcare"may !  includesuchconsiderationsas:risksattendanttoleaving,if "l" thebattererhasthreatenedtokillherifshedoes;risks f$$ attendanttostayingandsufferingcontinuedabuse;risks && attendanttoseekingassistancethroughgovernmentchannels, 'p!( potentiallyincreasingthedangertoherselfandherchildren; j)#* risksattendanttocriminalprosecutionagainsttheabuser;and +$, risksattendanttorelocation. #  6      ׀Whetheraparticularmotherin N thesecircumstanceshasactuallyfailedtoexerciseaminimum  degreeofcareisnecessarilydependentonfactssuchasthe  X severityandfrequencyoftheviolence,andtheresourcesand R  optionsavailabletoher(seeMatterofMelissaU.,148AD2d862   [3dDept1989];MatterofJamesMM.vJuneOO.,294AD2d630[3d \  Dept2002]). V   ` Onlywhenapetitionerdemonstrates,byapreponderance   ofevidence,thatbothelementsofsection1012(f)aresatisfied `  mayachildbedeemedneglectedunderthestatute.When"the Z  soleallegation"isthatthemotherhasbeenabusedandthechild  haswitnessedtheabuse,suchashowinghasnotbeenmade.This d doesnotmean,however,thatachildcanneverbe"neglected" ^ whenlivinginahouseholdplaguedbydomesticviolence.   Conceivably,neglectmightbefoundwherearecordestablishes h that,forexample,themotheracknowledgedthatthechildrenknew b ofrepeateddomesticviolencebyherparamourandhadreasonto !  beafraidofhim,yetnonethelessallowedhimseveraltimesto "l" returntoherhome,andlackedawarenessofanyimpactofthe N violenceonthechildren,asinMatterofJamesMM.,294AD2dat  632;orwherethechildrenwereexposedtoregularandcontinuous  X extremelyviolentconductbetweentheirparents,severaltimes R  requiringofficialintervention,andwherecaseworkerstestified   tothefearanddistressthechildrenwereexperiencingasa \  resultoftheirlongexposuretotheviolence(MatterofTheresa V  CC.,178AD2d687[3dDept1991]).    ` Insuchcircumstances,thebatteredmotherischarged `  withneglectnotbecausesheisavictimofdomesticviolenceor Z  becauseherchildrenwitnessedtheabuse,butratherbecausea  preponderanceoftheevidenceestablishesthatthechildrenwere d actuallyorimminentlyharmedbyreasonofherfailureto ^ exerciseevenminimalcareinprovidingthemwithproper   oversight. h  XuXXX@ CertifiedQuestionNo.2:Removals  b  ` Next,wearecalledupontofocusonremovalsbyACS, *!  inansweringthequestion:#XuXXXun]# "" ` ` "Cantheinjuryorpossibleinjury,ifany, $4$ thatresultstoachildwhohaswitnessed X% % domesticabuseagainstaparentorother .&& caretakerconstitute'danger'or'risk'to ' ' thechild's'lifeorhealth,'asthoseterms '!( aredefinedintheN.Y.FamilyCt.Act (b") 1022,1024,10261028?" )8#* ` ` XuXXXuThecitedFamilyCourtActsectionsrelatetotheremovalofa 2+$, childfromhome.Thus,inessence,weareaskedtodecide N whetheremotionalinjuryfromwitnessingdomesticviolencecan  risetoalevelthatestablishesan"imminentdanger"or"risk"  X toachild'slifeorhealth,sothatremovalisappropriate R  eitherinanemergencyorbycourtorder.    ` Whilewedonotreachtheconstitutionalquestions,it \  ishelpfulinframingthestatutoryissuestonotetheSecond V  Circuit'soutlineofthefederalconstitutionalquestions   relatingtoremovals.Theirquestionsemergeinlargemeasure `  fromtheDistrictCourt'sfindingsofan"agencywidepracticeof Z  removingchildrenfromtheirmotherwithoutevidenceofa  mother'sneglectandwithoutseekingpriorjudicialapproval" d (203FSupp2dat215),andFamilyCourtreviewofremovalsthat ^ "oftenfailstoprovidemothersandchildrenwithaneffective   avenuefortimelyrelieffromACSmistakes"(id.at221). h  ` Specifically,astoexparteremovals,theCircuit b CourtidentifiedproceduraldueprocessandFourthAmendment !  questionsfocusedonwhetherdangertoachildcouldencompass "l" emotionaltraumafromwitnessingdomesticviolenceagainsta f$$ parent,warrantingemergencyremoval.#XuXXXu`#Discussingtheprocedural && dueprocessquestion,theCourtremarkedthat: 'p!( ` ` "thereisastrongpossibilitythatif j)#* NewYorklawdoesnotauthorizeexparte @*#+ removals,ouropinioninTenenbaumatleast +$, arguablycouldweighinfavoroffindinga +%- proceduraldueprocessviolationincertain N circumstances.IfNewYorklawdoes $ authorizesuchremovals,Tenenbaumlikely  doesnotprohibitusfromdeferringtothat  judgment.Ineithercase,theunderlying  X NewYorkproceduralruleswillalsobean | . importantcomponentofourbalancing.Thus, R  thestatelawquestionofstatutory (  interpretationwilleitherrender   unnecessary,oratleastsubstantially    modify,thefederalconstitutionalquestion" \  (344F3dat172).c #  7      ׀XuXXXu 2  ` `  ` TheCourtalsoquestionedwhether"inthecontextof ,  theseizureofachildbyastateprotectiveagencytheFourth   Amendmentmightimposeanyadditionalrestrictionsaboveand 6 beyondthosethatapplytoordinaryarrests"(id.at173). 0  ` Astocourtorderedremovals,theSecondCircuit  recognizedchallengesbasedonsubstantivedueprocess, : proceduraldueprocesstheantecedentofCertifiedQuestionNo. 4 3andtheFourthAmendment.Thesubstantivedueprocess  questionconcernedwhethertheCityhadofferedareasonable > justificationfortheremovals.TheSecondCircuitobservedthat N "thereisasubstantialFourthAmendmentquestionpresentedif  NewYorklawdoesnotauthorizeremovalsinthecircumstances  X alleged"(id.at176). R   ` Finally,incertifyingthequestionstous,theCourt   explainedthat: \  ` ` "[t]hereis...someambiguityinthe V  statutorylanguageauthorizingremovals ,  pendingafinaldeterminationofstatus.   Followinganemergencyremoval,whetherex   parteorbycourtorder,theFamilyCourt `  mustreturnaremovedchildtotheparent's 6 custodyabsent'animminentrisk'or Z  'imminentdanger'to'thechild'slifeor 0 health.'Atthesametime,theFamilyCourt  mustconsiderthe'bestinterestsofthe  child'inassessingwhethercontinuing d removalisnecessarytopreventthreatsto : thechild'slifeorhealth.Additionally,in ^ ordertosupportremoval,theFamilyCourt 4 must'find[]thatremovalisnecessaryto   avoidimminentrisk.Howtheseprovisions  shouldbeharmonizedseemstoustobethe h provinceoftheCourtofAppeals'"(344F3d > at169[internalcitationsomitted]). b ` ` TheCircuitCourtsummarizedthepolicychallengedbyplaintiffs !  andfoundbytheDistrictCourtas"theallegedpracticeof "l" removalsbasedonatheorythatallowingone'schildtowitness f$$ ongoingdomesticviolenceisaformofneglect,eithersimply && becausesuchconductispresumptivelyneglectfulorbecausein 'p!( individualcircumstancesitisshowntothreatenthechild's j)#* physicaloremotionalhealth"(id.at166n5). +$,  ` Itisthispolicy,viewedinlightoftheDistrict N Court'sfactualfindings,thatinformsouranalysisofCertified  QuestionNo.2.Insodoing,weacknowledgetheLegislature's  X expressedgoalof"placingincreasedemphasisonpreventive R  servicesdesignedtomaintainfamilyrelationshipsratherthan   respondingtochildrenandfamiliesintroubleonlybyremoving \  thechildfromthefamily"(seeMarkG.vSabol,93NY2d710,719 V  [1999][construingChildWelfareReformActof1979[L1979,chs   610,611]).Wefurtheracknowledgethelegislativefindings, `  madepursuanttotheFamilyProtectionandDomesticViolence Z  InterventionActof1994,that  ` ` "thecorrosiveeffectofdomesticviolenceis d farreaching.Thebatterer'sviolence : injureschildrenbothdirectlyand ^ indirectly.Abuseofaparentisdetrimental 4 tochildrenwhetherornottheyare   physicallyabusedthemselves.Childrenwho  witnessdomesticviolencearemorelikelyto h experiencedelayeddevelopment,feelingsof > fear,depressionandhelplessnessandare b morelikelytobecomebatterersthemselves" 8  (L1994,ch222,1#XuXXXu$l#XuXXXu;seealsoPeoplevWood, !  95NY2d509,512[2000][thoughinvolvinga !! batterer,notavictim]). "l" ` `  ` Theselegislativefindingsrepresenttwofundamental-- f$$ sometimesconflictingprinciples.NewYorkhaslongembraceda && policyofkeeping"biologicalfamiliestogether"(Matterof 'p!( MarinoS.,Jr.,100NY2d361,372[2003]).Yet"whenachild's j)#* bestinterestsareendangered,suchobjectivesmustyieldtothe +$, State'sparamountconcernforthehealthandsafetyofthechild" N (id.at372).   ` AsweconcludedinresponsetoCertifiedQuestionNo.  X 1,exposingachildtodomesticviolenceisnotpresumptively R  neglectful.Noteverychildexposedtodomesticviolenceisat   riskofimpairment.Afortiori,exposureofachildtoviolence \  isnotpresumptivelygroundforremoval,andinmanyinstances V  removalmaydomoreharmtothechildthangood.Part2of   Article10oftheFamilyCourtActsetsforthfourwaysinwhich `  achildmayberemovedfromthehomeinresponsetoanallegation Z  ofneglect(orabuse)relatedtodomesticviolence:1)temporary  removalwithconsent;2)preliminaryordersafterapetitionis d filed;3)preliminaryordersbeforeapetitionisfiled;and4) ^ emergencyremovalwithoutacourtorder.Theissuebeforeusis   whetheremotionalharmsufferedbyachildexposedtodomestic h violence,whereshown,canwarrantthetraumaofremovalunder b anyoftheseprovisions. !   ` ThePracticeCommentariesstate,andweagree,thatthe "l" sectionsofArticle10,Part2createa"continuumofconsentand f$$ urgencyandmandateahierarchyofrequiredreview"beforea && childisremovedfromhome(seeBesharov,PracticeCommentaries, 'p!( McKinney'sConsLawsofNY,Book29A,FamilyCtAct1021at5 j)#* [1999ed]). +$,  ConsentRemoval  N  ` First,section1021providesthatachildmaybe  removed"fromtheplacewhereheisresidingwiththewritten  t consentofhisparentorotherpersonlegallyresponsibleforhis n  care,ifthechildisanabusedorneglectedchildunderthis   article"(FamilyCourtAct1021;seeTenenbaumvWilliams,193 x  F3d581,590n5[2dCir1999];MatterofJonathanP.,283AD2d r$  675[3dDept2001]).Thissectionissignificantbecause"many   parentsarewillingandabletounderstandtheneedtoplacethe |  childoutsidethehomeandbecauseresorttounnecessarylegal v( coercioncanbedetrimentaltolatertreatmentefforts" " (Besharov,at6).   PostPetitionRemoval  z,  ` Ifparentalconsentcannotbeobtained,section1027, B atissuehere,providesforpreliminaryordersafterthefiling  ofaneglect(orabuse)petition.Thus,accordingtothe L statutorycontinuum,wherethecircumstancesarenotsoexigent, F!  theagencyshouldbringapetitionandseekahearingpriorto "" removalofthechild.Inanycaseinvolvingabuseorinany $P$ casewherethechildhasalreadybeenremovedwithoutacourt J&& ordertheFamilyCourtmustholdahearingassoonas '!( practicableafterthefilingofapetition,todeterminewhether )T#* thechild'sinterestsrequireprotectionpendingafinalorderof N+%, disposition(FamilyCtAct1027[a]).Asisrelevanthere,the N sectionfurtherprovidesthatinanyothercircumstance(suchas  aneglectcase),afterthepetitionisfiledanyperson  X originatingtheproceeding(ortheLawGuardian)mayapplyfor R  orthecourtonitsownmayorderahearingtodeterminewhether   thechild'sinterestsrequireprotection,pendingafinalorder \  ofdisposition(id.).] #  8       V   ` Forexample,inMatterofAdamDD.(112AD2d493[3d   Dept1985]),afterfilingachildneglectpetition,petitioner `  WashingtonCountyDepartmentofSocialServicessoughtanorder Z  undersection1027.Atahearing,evidencedemonstratedthat  respondentmotherhadtoldhersononseveraloccasionsthatshe d intendedtokillherself,andFamilyCourtdirectedthatcustody ^ beplacedwithpetitioneronatemporarybasisfortwomonths.   Atthesubsequentdispositionalhearing,apsychiatristtestified h thatrespondentwassufferingfromatypeofparanoid b schizophreniathatendangeredthewellbeingofthechild,and !  recommendedthecontinuedplacementwithpetitioner.Asecond "l" psychiatristconcurred.TheAppellateDivisionconcludedthat N therecordaffordedabasisforFamilyCourttofindneglect  becauseofpossibleimpairmentofthechild'semotionalhealth,  X andcontinuedplacementofthechildwithpetitioner. R   ` Whilenotadomesticviolencecase,MatterofAdamDD.   isinstructivebecauseitconcernsstepstakeninthe \  circumstancewhereachildisemotionallyharmedbyparental V  behavior.Theparent'srepeatedthreatsofsuicidecaused   emotionalharmthatcouldbeakintotheexperienceofachild `  whowitnessesrepeatedepisodesofdomesticviolenceperpetrated Z  againstaparent.Inthiscircumstance,theagencydidnot  immediatelyremovethechild,butproceededwiththefilingofa d petitionandahearing. ^  ` Uponsuchahearing,ifthecourtfindsthatremovalis   necessarytoavoidimminentrisktothechild'slifeorhealth, h itisrequiredtoremoveorcontinuetheremovalandremandthe b childtoaplaceapprovedbytheagency(FamilyCtAct1027[b] !  [i]).Inundertakingthisinquiry,thestatutealsorequiresthe "l" courttoconsideranddeterminewhethercontinuationinthe f$$ child'shomewouldbecontrarytothebestinterestsofthechild && (id.).a #  9      ׀ 'p!(  ` TheCircuitCourthasaskedustoharmonizethe"best N interests"testwiththecalculusconcerning"imminentrisk"and  "imminentdanger"to"lifeorhealth"(344F3dat169).Inorder  X tojustifyafindingofimminentrisktolifeorhealth,the R  agencyneednotprovethatthechildhassufferedactualinjury   (seeMatterofKimberlyH.,242AD2d35,38[1stDept1998]). \  Rather,thecourtengagesinafactintensiveinquiryto V  determinewhetherthechild'semotionalhealthisatrisk.   Section1012(h),moreover,setsforthspecificfactors,evidence `  ofwhichmaydemonstrate"substantiallydiminishedpsychological Z  orintellectualfunctioning"(seealsoMatterofSayehR.,91  NY2d306,314316[1997];NassauCountyDept.ofSocialServs.on d behalfofDanteM.vDeniseJ.,87NY2d73,7879[1995]).As ^ notedinourdiscussionofCertifiedQuestionNo.1,section1012   (h)containsthecaveatthatimpairmentofemotionalhealthmust h be"clearlyattributabletotheunwillingnessorinabilityofthe b respondenttoexerciseaminimumdegreeofcaretowardthechild" !  (seeMatterofTheresaCC.,178AD2d687[3dDept1991]). "l"  ` Importantly,in1988,#XuXXXu~#theLegislatureaddedthe"best f$$ interests"requirementtothestatute,aswellastherequirement && thatXuXXXureasonableeffortsbemade"topreventoreliminatetheneed 'p!( forremovalofthechildfromthehome"#XuXXXuV#(L1988,ch478,5).f #  10      ׀ N Thesechangeswereapparentlynecessarytocomportwithfederal  requirementsunderTitleIVEoftheSocialSecurityAct(42USC  X 670679a),whichmandatedthatfederal"fostercare R  maintenancepaymentsmaybemadeonbehalfofotherwiseeligible   childrenwhowereremovedfromthehomeofaspecifiedrelative \  pursuanttoavoluntaryplacementagreement,orastheresultof V  a'judicialdeterminationtotheeffectthatcontinuationtherein   wouldbecontrarytothewelfareofthechildand...that `  reasonableefforts[topreventtheneedforremoval]havebeen Z  made'"(PolicyInterpretationQuestionoftheUnitedStates  DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,May3,1985,Bill d Jacket,L1988,ch478,at3233).XuXXXuԀThemeasures"ensure[d]that ^ childreninvolvedintheearlystagesofchildprotective   proceedingsandtheirfamiliesreceiveappropriateservicesto h preventthechildren'sremovalfromtheirhomeswhenever b possible"(MemfromCesarA.PeralestoEvanA.Davis,Counselto !  theGovernor,July27,1988,BillJacket,L1988,ch478,at14). "l"  ` Bycontrast,theCityatthetimetooktheposition f$$ that && ` ` "themixingofthestandards'bestinterest 'p!( ofthechild'and'imminentrisk'is (F") confusing.Itmakesnosenseforacourtto N determineaspartofan'imminentrisk' $ decision,whatisinthe'bestinterestof  thechild.'Ifthechildisin'imminent  risk',his/her'bestinterest'isremoval  X fromthehome.A'bestinterest' | . determinationismoreappropriatelymade R  afteraninvestigationandareporthavebeen (  completedandallthefactsareavailable"   (LetterfromLegislativeRepresentativeJames    Brennan,TheCityofNewYorkOfficeofthe \  MayortoGovernorMarioM.Cuomo,July27, 2  1988,BillJacket,L1988,ch478,at23). V  ` `  ` Inthislitigation,theCitypositsthatthe"best   interests"determinationispartoftheFamilyCourt'sconclusion `  thatthereisimminentriskwarrantingremoval,andconcedesthat Z  whetherachildwillbeharmedbytheremovalisarelevant  consideration.TheCitythusrecognizesthatthequestions d facingaFamilyCourtjudgeintheremovalcontextare ^ extraordinarilycomplex.AstheCircuitCourtobserved,"it   couldbearguedthattheexigenciesofthemomentthatthreaten h thewelfareofachildjustifyremoval.Ontheotherhand,a b blanketpresumptioninfavorofremovalmaynotfairlycapture !  thenuancesofeachfamilysituation"(344F3dat174). "l"  ` Theplainlanguageofthesectionandthelegislative f$$ historysupportingitestablishthatablanketpresumption && favoringremovalwasneverintended.Thecourtmustdomorethan 'p!( identifytheexistenceofariskofseriousharm.Rather,a j)#* courtmustweigh,inthefactualsettingbeforeit,whetherthe +$, imminentrisktothechildcanbemitigatedbyreasonableefforts N toavoidremoval.Itmustbalancethatriskagainsttheharm  removalmightbring,anditmustdeterminefactuallywhichcourse  X isinthechild'sbestinterests. R   ` Additionally,thecourtmustspecificallyconsider   whetherimminentrisktothechildmightbeeliminatedbyother \  means,suchasissuingatemporaryorderofprotectionor V  providingservicestothevictim(FamilyCtAct1027[b][iv]).   TheCommitteeBillMemorandumsupportingthislegislation `  explainstheintenttoaddressthesituation"[w]hereoneparent Z  isabusivebutthechildmaysafelyresideathomewiththeother  parent,theabusershouldberemoved.Thiswillsparechildren d thetraumaofremovalandplacementinfostercare"(Memof ^ ChildrenandFamiliesStandingComm,BillJacket,L1989,ch727,   at7). h  ` Theselegislativeconcernsweremet,forexample,in b MatterofNaomiR.(296AD2d503[2dDept2002]),where, !  followingahearingpursuanttosection1027,FamilyCourtissued "l" atemporaryorderofprotectionagainstafather,excludinghim f$$ fromthehome,onthegroundthatheallegedlysexuallyabused && oneofhisfourchildren.Evidenceestablishedthatthefather's 'p!( returntothehome,evenunderthemother'ssupervision,would j)#* presentanimminentrisktothehealthandsafetyofallofthe +$, children.Thus,pendingafullfactfindinghearing,Family N Courttookthestepofmaintainingtheintegrityofthefamily  unitandinsteadremovedtheabuser.  X  ExParteRemovalbyCourtOrder  R   ` Iftheagencybelievesthatthereisinsufficienttime   tofileapetition,thenextsteponthecontinuumshouldnotbe x  emergencyremoval,butexparteremovalbycourtorder(seee.g. r$  NassauCountyDept.ofSocialServs.onbehalfofDanteM.v   DeniseJ.,87NY2d73[1995]).Section1022oftheFamilyCourt |  Actprovidesthatthecourtmayenteranorderdirectingthe v( temporaryremovalofachildfromhomebeforethefilingofa " petitionifthreefactorsaremet.   ` First,theparentmustbeabsentor,ifpresent,must z, havebeenaskedandrefusedtoconsenttotemporaryremovalof & thechildandmusthavebeeninformedofanintenttoapplyfor  anorder.Second,thechildmustappeartosufferfromabuseor ~0 neglectofaparentorotherpersonlegallyresponsibleforthe *!  child'scaretotheextentthatimmediateremovalisnecessaryto "" avoidimminentdangertothechild'slifeorhealth.Third, $4$ theremustbeinsufficienttimetofileapetitionandholda .&& preliminaryhearing. '!(  ` Justasinasection1027inquiry,thecourtmust )8#* considerwhethercontinuationinthechild'shomewouldbe 2+$, contrarytothebestinterestsofthechild;whetherreasonable N effortsweremadepriortopreventoreliminatetheneedfor  removalfromthehome;andwhetherimminentrisktothechild  X wouldbeeliminatedbytheissuanceofatemporaryorderof R  protectiondirectingtheremovalofthepersonfromthechild's   residence.k #  11      ׀Here,thecourtmustengageinafactfinding \  inquiryintowhetherthechildisatriskandappearstosuffer V  fromneglect.    ` ThePracticeCommentariessuggestthatsection1022may `  beunfamiliar,orseemunnecessary,tothoseinpracticeinNew Z  YorkCity,"whereitiscommontotakeemergencyprotective  actionwithoutpriorcourtreview"(#XuXXXuG#Besharov,Practice d Commentaries,McKinney'sConsLawsofNY,Book29A,FamilyCtAct ^ 1022at10,[1999ed]).XuXXXuIf,astheDistrictCourt'sfindings   suggest,thiswasdoneincaseswhereacourtordercouldbe h obtained,thepracticecontravenesthestatute.Section1022 b ensuresthatinmosturgentsituations,therewillbejudicial !  oversightinordertopreventwellmeaningbutmisguidedremovals "l" thatmayharmthechildmorethanhelp.Asthecommenttothe f$$ predecessorstatutestated,"thissection...[is]designedto && avoidaprematureremovalofachildfromhishomeby 'p!( establishingaprocedureforearlyjudicialdeterminationof N urgentneed"(CommitteeComments,FamilyCtActrepealed322  [1963]).  X  ` Whetheranalyzingaremovalapplicationundersection R  1027or1022,oranapplicationforachild'sreturnunder   section1028,acourtmustengageinabalancingtestofthe \  imminentriskwiththebestinterestsofthechildand,where V  appropriate,thereasonableeffortsmadetoavoidremovalor   continuingremoval.Theterm"safercourse"(seee.g.Matterof `  KimberlyH.,242AD2d35[1stDept1998];MatterofTantalynTT., Z  115AD2d799[3dDept1985])shouldnotbeusedtomaskadearth  ofevidenceorasawatereddown,impermissiblepresumption. d &    EmergencyRemovalWithoutCourtOrder  ^  ` Finally,section1024providesforemergencyremovals & ' ^withoutacourtorder.Thesectionpermitsremovalwithouta  courtorderandwithoutconsentoftheparentifthereis ~0 reasonablecausetobelievethatthechildisinsuchurgent *!  circumstanceorconditionthatcontinuinginthehomeorcareof "" theparentpresentsanimminentdangertothechild'slifeor $4$ health,andthereisnotenoughtimetoapplyforanorderunder .&& section1022(FamilyCtAct1024[a];seegenerallyMatterof '!( JosephDD.,300AD2d760,761n1[3dDept2002][notingthat )8#* removalundersuchemergencycircumstancesrequiresthefilingof 2+$, anArticle10petition"forthwith"andpromptcourtreviewofthe N nonjudicialdecisionpursuanttoFamilyCtAct1026(c)and  1028];seealsoMatterofKarlaV.,278AD2d159[1stDept  X 2000]).Thus,emergencyremovalisappropriatewherethedanger R  issoimmediate,sourgentthatthechild'slifeorsafetywill   beatriskbeforeanexparteordercanbeobtained.The \  standardobviouslyisastringentone. V   ` Section1024establishesanobjectivetest,whetherthe   childisinsuchcircumstanceorconditionthatremaininginthe `  homepresentsimminentdangertolifeorhealth.j #  12      ׀Inconstruing Z  "imminentdanger"undersection1024,ithasbeenheldthat  whetherachildisin"imminentdanger"isnecessarilyafact d intensivedetermination."Itisnotrequiredthatthechildbe ^ injuredinthepresenceofacaseworkernorisitnecessaryfor   theallegedabusertobepresentatthetimethechildistaken h fromthehome.Itissufficientiftheofficialshave% i %iBpersuasive b evidenceofseriousongoingabuseand,baseduponthebest !  investigationreasonablypossibleunderthecircumstances,have "l" reasontofearimminentrecurrence"(GottliebvCountyofOrange, f$$ 871FSupp625,628629[SDNY1994],citingRobisonvVia,821 && F2d913,922[2dCir1987]).TheGottliebcourtaddedthat, N "[s]incethisevidenceisthebasisforremovalofachild,it  shouldbeasreliableandthoroughlyexaminedaspossibleto  X avoidunnecessaryharmtothefamilyunit"(871FSuppat629). R   ` Section1024concerns,moreover,onlytheverygrave   circumstanceofdangertolifeorhealth.Whilewecannotsay, \  forallfuturetime,thatthepossibilitycanneverexist,inthe V  caseofemotionalinjury!or,evenmoreremotely,theriskof   emotionalinjurycausedbywitnessingdomesticviolence,itmust `  beararecircumstanceinwhichthetimewouldbesofleetingand Z  thedangersogreatthatemergencyremovalwouldbewarranted.g #  13      ׀  @0 0  CertifiedQuestionNo.3:Process  d  ` Finally,theSecondCircuitasksus: z, ` ` "Doesthefactthatthechildwitnessedsuch & abusesufficetodemonstratethat'removalis  necessary,'N.Y.FamilyCt.Act1022,  1024,1027,orthat'removalwasinthe Z child'sbestinterests,'N.Y.FamilyCt.Act ~0 1028,1052(b)(i)(A),ormustthechild T  protectiveagencyofferadditional, *!  particularizedevidencetojustifyremoval?" "! ` `  ` TheCircuitCourthasbeforeittheproceduraldue #^# processquestionwhether,ifNewYorklawpermitsapresumption N thatremovalisappropriatebasedonthewitnessingofdomestic  violence,thatpresumptionwouldcomportwithStanleyvIllinois  X (405US645[1972][recognizingafather'sproceduraldueprocess R  interestinanindividualizeddeterminationoffitness]).All   partiesmaintain,however,andweconcur,thatundertheFamily \  CourtAct,therecanbeno"blanketpresumption"favoringremoval V  whenachildwitnessesdomesticviolence,andthateachcaseis   factspecific.AsdemonstratedinourdiscussionofCertified `  QuestionNo.2,whenacourtordersremoval,particularized Z  evidencemustexisttojustifythatdetermination,including,  whereappropriate,evidenceofeffortsmadetopreventor d eliminatetheneedforremovalandtheimpactofremovalonthe ^ child.    ` TheCircuitCourtpointstotwocasesinwhichremovals h occurredbasedondomesticviolencewithoutcorrespondingexpert b testimonyontheappropriatenessofremovalintheparticular !  circumstance(MatterofCarlosM.,293AD2d617[2dDept2002]; "l" MatterofLonellJ.,Jr.,242AD2d58[1stDept1998]).Both f$$ caseswerereviewedontheissuewhethertherewassufficient && evidencetosupportafindingofneglect.InCarlosM.,the 'p!( evidenceshoweda12yearhistoryofdomesticviolencebetween j)#* theparentswhichwasnotonlywitnessedbythechildrenbutalso +$, oftenactuallyspurredtheirintervention.InLonellJ.,Jr., N caseworkerstestifiedatafactfindinghearingaboutthe  domesticviolenceperpetratedbythechildren'sfatheragainst  X theirmother,aswellastheunsanitaryconditionofthehomeand R  thechildren'spoorhealth.    ` WedonotreadCarlosM.orLonellJ.,Jr.as \  supportiveofapresumptionthatifachildhaswitnessed V  domesticviolence,thechildhasbeenharmedandremovalis   appropriate.Thatpresumptionwouldbeimpermissible.Ineach `  case,multiplefactorsformedthebasisforinterventionand Z  determinationsofneglect.AstheFirstDepartmentconcludedin  LonellJ.,Jr.,moreover,"nothinginsection1012itself d requiresexperttestimony,asopposedtootherconvincing ^ evidenceofneglect"(242AD2dat61).Indeed,undersection   1046(a)(viii),whichsetsforththeevidentiarystandardsfor h abuseandneglecthearings,competentexperttestimonyona b child'semotionalconditionmaybeheard.TheLonellJ.,Jr. !  courtexpressedconcernthatwhileolderchildrencancommunicate "l" withapsychologicalexpertabouttheeffectsofdomestic f$$ violenceontheiremotionalstate,muchyoungerchildrenoften && cannot(242AD2dat62).Thecourtbelievedthat"[t]orequire 'p!( experttestimonyofthistypeinthelattersituationwouldbe j)#* tantamounttorefusingtoprotectthemostvulnerableand +$, impressionablechildren.Whileviolencebetweenparents N adverselyaffectsallchildren,youngerchildreninparticular  aremostlikelytosufferfrompsychosomaticillnessesand  X arresteddevelopment"(id.). R   ` Granted,insomecases,itmaybedifficultforan   agencytoshow,absentexperttestimony,thatthereisimminent \  risktoachild'semotionalstate,andthatanyimpairmentof V  emotionalhealthis"clearlyattributabletotheunwillingnessor   inabilityoftherespondenttoexerciseaminimumdegreeofcare `  towardthechild"(FamilyCtAct1012[h]).Yetnothinginthe Z  plainlanguageofArticle10requiressuchtestimony.Thetragic  realityis,asthefactsofLonellJ.,Jr.show,thatemotional d injurymaybeonlyoneoftheharmsattributabletothechaosof ^ domesticviolence.    ` Accordingly,thecertifiedquestionsshouldbeanswered h inaccordancewiththisOpinion.#XuXXXu# b XuXXXu***************** !  FollowingcertificationofquestionsbytheUnitedStatesCourt "l" ofAppealsfortheSecondCircuitandacceptanceofthequestions #B# bythisCourtpursuanttosection500.17oftheRulesofPractice f$$ oftheNewYorkStateCourtofAppeals,andafterhearing <%% argumentbycounselforthepartiesandconsiderationofthe && briefsandtherecordsubmitted,certifiedquestionsansweredin & ' accordancewiththeopinionherein.OpinionbyChiefJudgeKaye. 'p!( JudgesSmith,Ciparick,Rosenblatt,Graffeo,ReadandSmith (F") concur. j)#* DecidedOctober26,2004 +%- #XuXXXu#