Ch. 33 RIGHTS OF INCARCERATED PARENTS 1015
(5) Provide reasonable care for and supervision of the child during the course of the placement.
More importantly, in most cases, DSS has a general legal obligation to make what the law calls “diligent
efforts” to encourage a relationship between you and your child,
although there are some exceptions
created by ASFA. “Diligent efforts” include:
(1) Keeping you informed of your child’s progress;
(2) Making arrangements with your correctional facility for your child to visit you regularly in the
facility;
and
(3) Providing or suggesting counseling or other services to resolve problems that may prevent your
child’s eventual return to you.
The exact meaning of “diligent efforts” will depend on the individual case. The agency may be required to
maintain regular contact with you and inform you that failure to contact and plan for your child may result
in a termination of your parental rights.
In one case, the court found that an agency did not make diligent
efforts when it did not help parents satisfy agency requirements for the return of their child. Although the
parents did not fulfill the agency’s plan, which included finding a suitable home, having the means to
support the child, and going to family counseling, the court held the agency should have made efforts to
address problems, such as poverty, that kept the parents from fulfilling the agency requirements.
In
another case, an agency did not satisfy its statutory requirement when it failed to offer counseling to a
child’s incarcerated father, made no effort to help the father get visitation rights, and made no attempt to
involve the father in his child’s life.
In defining “diligent efforts” the highest court of New York has said that the foster care agency must
make “meaningful efforts” to:
(1) provide you with counseling for any problem, such as drug or alcohol abuse, that might be an
obstacle to your child’s eventual return to you;
(2) help you find housing or employment;
(3) help you plan for your child’s future; and
. See
Andrews v. Cnty. of Otsego, 112 Misc. 2d 37, 39, 446 N.Y.S.2d 169, 171 (Sup. Ct. Otsego County 1982)
(holding that a county with custody of a foster care child has a continuing obligation to protect the child’s health, safety,
and welfare and can be held liable for negligent placement or supervision of a child).
. N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 384-b(7)(f) (McKinney 2010 & Supp. 2013).
See also In re
Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 385,
389, 462 N.E.2d 1139, 1148, 1150, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 430, 432 (N.Y. 1984) (explaining that the agency must make
“affirmative, repeated, and meaningful efforts to assist” a parent before initiating a parental rights termination
proceeding and approving dismissal of permanent neglect petition filed by foster care agency where father had made
visits regularly, established paternity, and developed a plan to take custody of the child, but the agency did not fulfill its
“diligent efforts” requirement);
In re
Erika M., 285 A.D.2d 986, 986–87, 727 N.Y.S.2d 234, 235 (4th Dep’t 2001)
(dismissing petition for termination of parental rights because agency did not show, by clear and convincing evidence,
that it made “diligent efforts” to strengthen the parent-child bond);
In re
Jamie M., 96 A.D.2d 737, 737, 465 N.Y.S.2d
339, 340 (4th Dep’t 1983) (finding that the agency failed to make “diligent efforts” to help parents solve the very
problems requiring removal of the children and causing the termination proceedings),
aff’d
, 63 N.Y.2d 388, 472 N.E.2d
311, 482 N.Y.S.2d 461 (N.Y. 1984).
. N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 384-b(7)(f)(4) (McKinney 2010 & Supp. 2013).
See also In re
Gerald BB., 51 A.D.3d
1081, 1084, 857 N.Y.S.2d 314, 318 (3d Dep’t 2008) (holding that DSS satisfied the requirement to keep parents informed
as to child’s progress as “written reports” were “routinely sent to the mother charting her children's progress while they
were in foster care,” and finding “that efforts were repeatedly made by members of DSS to involve the mother in
discussions regarding plans for the children's future”).
. N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 384-b(7)(f)(5) (McKinney 2010 & Supp. 2013). The agency is also responsible for making
arrangements to transport your child to and from the facility to visit with you. N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 384-b(7)(f)(5)
(McKinney 2010 & Supp. 2013);
see also In re
Gerald BB., 51 A.D.3d 1081, 1084, 857 N.Y.S.2d 314, 318 (3d Dep’t 2008)
(finding that DSS met its burden as they “arranged with [the mother], while incarcerated, to have visits with the
children”).
. N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 384-b(7)(f)(5) (McKinney 2010 & Supp. 2013) (requiring the agency to coordinate with
the prison to provide “rehabilitative services to resolve or correct the problems other than incarceration itself which
impair the incarcerated parent’s ability to maintain contact with the child”).
. See In re
Shannon U., 210 A.D.2d 752, 753–54, 620 N.Y.S.2d 851, 852 (3d Dep’t 1994) (holding that agency
was found to satisfy its duty because it had maintained regular contact with parents by phone, mail, home visits, and
meetings and had arranged visits, counseling, and parenting classes).
. See In re
Jamie M., 63 N.Y.2d 388, 394–95, 472 N.E.2d 311, 314, 482 N.Y.S.2d 461, 464 (N.Y. 1984)
(dismissing petition for termination of parental rights because the agency failed to show diligent efforts in addressing
the unemployment and financial instability of parents).
. See In re
Jennifer Ann W., 198 A.D.2d 881, 882, 605 N.Y.S.2d 698, 699 (4th Dep’t 1993).