2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...

Chief Justice Decision
Atrion Raimundi, Appellant, v. Child
Protective Services and Mike Couzens,
individually, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third
Department, New York
March 9, 2012, Argued
March 10, 2012, Decided
COUNSEL: Eric Quitter and Stephen Bruno,
for Appellant.
Tara Galusha and Joanna Bugenis, for
Respondent.
JUDGES: Last, Last, Last, and Last.
OPINION BY: Last
OPINION
We the Appellate Court of the State of New
York rule part in favor of the respondent, Child
Protective Services and Mike Couzens, and part
in favor of the Appellant, Atrion Raimundi.
The Constitution of the United States protects
the most sacred rights of our citizens, and the
two amendments at issue in this case are the 4th
amendment, which protects against unreasonable
seizures, and the 14th amendment, which
protects our right to familial association. First,
this court does not find that there was a violation
of the 4th amendment. The Attorney General
was able to successfully convince the court that
Couzens acted appropriately under the
circumstances. Under the 4th amendment, CPS
can only seize a child if one other sign of abuse
is coupled with the violation of smoking with a
minor in a motor vehicle. The Attorney General
adequately showed that this abuse existed, thus
constituting a 4th amendment violation. In our
case, however, several factors made it clear that
possible abuse in an emergency situation
existed. Couzens used both his knowledge from
Molly Warren, who is a trained police officer,
his abilities as a trained CPS worked to
determine when abuse is taking place, and the
scene he witnessed, which included Joe crying
and screaming in the snow as Atrion acted
indifferent and eventually forcefully grabbed the
child. Considering the totality of the events, we
believe that an emergency situation did exist and
that it was in the best interest of the child for Joe
to be taken into the custody of CPS. Because of
this, the 4th amendment was not violated.
In regards to the 14th amendment, we find that
CPS violated Atrion’s fundamental right to
familial association. This violation existed due
to the fact that the separation was shocking,
arbitrary, and capricious. Just as there was a
threshold of time when the children should have
been returned in the case of Perez v. Sugarman,
the Public Defender sufficiently demonstrated
that such a threshold exists in our case. Prior to
when physical abuse was officially ruled out, we
find that the holding of Joe was not shocking,
arbitrary, and capricious. Since the possible
threat of physical abuse still existed, the 14th
amendment was not violated. However, we find
that this threshold was surpassed once Atrion
was denied visitation to his son after the
physical abuse had been disproven. According to
Anthony v. New York, a main reason a 14th
amendment violation was not found was because
contact was given to the family. In our case,
however, no such contact was granted, thus
justifying the 14th amendment violation. Since
there was no further threat of abuse we find that
withholding Joe from Atrion’s custody was
shocking, arbitrary, and capricious, thus
constituting a 14th amendment violation. The
14th amendment protects the rights of familial
association. Being as this is a part of the
constitution and thus a fundamental right, we the
court feel that protecting this right is of upmost
importance.
Even though we find no violation of the 4th
amendment, the violation of the 14th
amendment provides justification that a new trial
should be granted.
41