The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case which will determine whether Child Protective Services, accompanied by police, can take children out of their classes at school and interview them without parental consent or court order. This case will have a major impact on families’ rights. Our firm has been retained to represent S.G. and her mother Sarah Greene in the Supreme Court. Carolyn Kubitschek will argue the case in the Spring, 2011.

A federal judge in Brooklyn has issued a decision against pediatrician Debra Esernio-Jenssen, M.D., and her employer Long Island Jewish Hospital. Two parents and their child sued, claiming that Dr. Jenssen's misdiagnosis of the baby's arm fracture as child abuse led to the wrongful removal of the child from his parents by ACS; prosecution of the parents in Family Court for child abuse; and the entry of an indicated report against them in the State Central Register.

In a class-action lawsuit, credited with affecting policy nationwide, the federal court declared the City of New York's Policy of removing children from battered mothers to be unconstitutional, and enjoined its illegal practices.

The Ninth Circuit en banc ruled that foster children who are placed in dangerous foster care placements can sue the agencies and staff who failed to protect them from harm. The Court overruled its 14-year-old precedent which had given absolute immunity from liability to foster care organizations and staff.

The settlement for $2.75 million was approved by Judge John Gleeson on April 25, 2000.

The court expanded the Fourth Amendment rights of children, holding that social workers could not have doctors conduct medical examinations on children without the consent of the parents or a court order, In addition, the court held that, if there is enough time for a caseworker to obtain a court order, the caseworker could not remove the children from their parents without one.

In a major expansion of the right to reputation, the court held that the operation of the Department of Social Services' State Central Register was unconstitutional. The Register is a list of all parents suspected of abusing or neglecting their children, and any person whose name is on the list is effectively banned from working with children. The court found the system to be unacceptable due to the low level of evidence required to place a name on the register and the lack of a hearing.

In a landmark decision, the court established the Constitutional right of children in foster care to be free from harm and for children abused in foster case to sue both the City of New York and the foster care agency under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A great expansion for children's rights, this decision has served as a precedent for all other circuits that have had similar cases.

A mother and her children sued the City of New York, and Foster care agencies for children who were physically and emotionally harmed while in foster care. This court determined that the domestic relations exception in federal court did not apply in cases where children were abused while in the custody of the City of New York.

New York's highest court held that parents who are in danger of losing their children and are ordered to submit to psychiatric examinations have the right to bring their attorney with them to the examination.

The court, granted benefits to a claimant who was denied benefits at the administrative hearing level. This court decided that the administrative judge was not able to properly assess the claimant's disability, and thus he was eligible for Supplemental Security benefits.