By petition filed pursuant to Family Court Act §360.1 on May 2, 2008 the respondent,

Juan G., is alleged to have violated the conditions of an order of disposition entered in this Court

on January 25, 2008 which placed him under the supervision of the New York City Department

of Probation for a period of 12 months (see, Fam. Ct. Act §352.2 [1] [b], §353.2, §360.2).^[FN1]

Respondent made his initial appearance upon the violation petition on May 2, 2008.

On that date, the Court assigned a Law Guardian to represent the respondent as he had been

represented by a court appointed Law Guardian in the prior proceedings upon the delinquency

petition (see, Fam. Ct. Act §§249 [a]; 360.3 [4]), and the Court entered an order directing that [*2]

respondent be detained pending further proceedings upon the violation petition. On June 4, 2008

respondent entered an admission to having violated the condition of the order probation which

directed that he attend school regularly and that he not receive any school suspensions. The Court

adjourned the proceeding for a new dispositional hearing and updated reports were ordered from

the Department of Probation as well as the Family Court Mental Health Services Clinic (Fam. Ct.

Act §§360.3 [6], 351.1 [2]). With respect to the updated investigation to be conducted by the

Department of Probation, the Court directed that the Department investigate the circumstances

of respondent's father, Vincente G., whom the Court was advised is employed as a helicopter

mechanic by Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation in Connecticut and who resides in a private house in

Waterbury, Connecticut.^[FN2]

Respondent and both of his parents appeared before the Court on June 24, 2008. On that

date, the dispositional hearing was further continued so that respondent's parents could be

interviewed by the Mental Health Services Clinic and for the Department of Probation to

complete its exploration of placement. The hearing commenced on July 2, 2008 and continued

until August 19, 2008. Respondent was released from detention upon the condition that he reside

with his father in Connecticut until the next court date (see, 22 NYCRR §205.25 [a] [5]). On

August 19, 2008 the Court received information from the Department of Probation relating to

respondent's adjustment in Connecticut and the Court continued respondent's release and

requested the Probation provide a final report to the Court on September 24, 2008. In addition, [*3]

the Court advised respondent's father, Vincente G., that given his income and assets, he would

be required to reimburse the State of New York for the cost of the legal services rendered by his

son's Law Guardian in these proceedings upon the probation petition violation.

While there has been no refusal by the respondent's parents to obtain counsel for him

(e.g., State ex rel. Gordon v. Copeland, 803 SW2d 153, 160 [Mo. App. 1991]; In re J.B., 602

A2d 368, 369 [Vt. Sup Ct 1991]; see also, Fam. Ct. Act §249-a ), because respondent's father did

not appear before the Court until June 24, 2008, the Court had no information relating to his

income and assets prior to then and a Law Guardian was appointed by the Court at public

expense. While the Court has been made aware that respondent's father has remarried and may

have other support obligations, the Probation Department has also informed the Court that the

father earns "at least $80,000 per year" and that he resides in a private house in Connecticut, and

when Mr. G. appeared in court on September 24, 2008, he indicated that he was presently

residing with his wife, their young child and the respondent in a house she owns in Bridgeport,

Connecticut and that had rented his house in Waterbury and was drawing rental income of more

than $1,500 per month from his tenant.

The relevant statutes render the parents of a minor child liable for his or her support

(Fam. Ct. Act §413[1]; Social Services Law §101[1]; Bani-Esraili v. Lerman, 69 NY2d 807,

808 [1987]), such that it may be said that parents are jointly and severally liable for the support

of their children (see generally, Ravo v. Rogatnick, 90 NY2d 305, 309 [1987]; Matter of

Seagroatt Floral Company, Inc., 78 NY2d 439, 448 [1991]), and courts have found that the

parental obligation to provide support for a child may include the expense of counsel for the

child in a juvenile delinquency or other court proceeding as a "proper and reasonable expense" [*4]

(Fam. Ct. Act §416; see, Matter of Cheri H., 121 Misc 2d 973, 973-974 1983]; People v. Kearns,

189 Misc 2d 283, 285-286 [2001]; Matter of Plovnick v. Klinger, 10 AD3d 84, 90 [2004]; State

ex rel. Gordon v. Copeland at 160; In re J.B. at 369; see also, 1989 Op. Att. Gen. (Inf.) 126).^[FN3]

At the initial appearance in a juvenile delinquency proceeding the statute directs that "the

Court must appoint a law guardian to represent the respondent pursuant to the provisions of

section two hundred forty-nine if independent legal representation is not available to such

respondent" (Fam. Ct. Act §320.2 [2]), and as relevant to the current procedural posture of this

proceeding, where respondent is charged with violating the conditions of an order of probation,

the statute provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he respondent is entitled to counsel at all stages of

a proceeding under this section" (Fam. Ct. Act §360.3 [4]). Here at the time that respondent

made his initial appearances upon the juvenile delinquency and the violation of probation

petitions, the Court was unaware of his father's circumstances and a Law Guardian from the

panel was assigned. It is recently that this Court because familiar with the father's circumstances

which may make it appropriate to apportion a part of the cost of the legal services rendered by

the Law Guardian to the father (see, County Law §722-d [court may direct payment for legal

services subsequent to assignment of counsel where circumstances change]).

As Justice Buckley, later the Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division for the First

Judicial Department, stated in his opinion in Colangelo v. Colangelo (176 Misc 2d 837 [1998]),

"[t]he assigned Law Guardian panel is only intended to provide public funding for children of [*5]

those parents unable to afford privately retained counsel . . . [t]o assign publicly funded legal

representation to individuals with an ability to afford their own counsel makes no sense . . .

[t]he creation of a Law Guardian panel did not preclude representation of minors by private

counsel and relegate all children to publicly funded attorneys" (id. at 842-843 [emphasis added]),

an observation which has also been made by the Appellate Division for the Second Judicial

Department (Matter of Plovnick v. Klinger at 89).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Vincente G., father of the respondent, shall submit a completed

financial disclosure affidavit which shall identify his dependents, the amount of any child support

he pays pursuant to court order or written agreement, and the income of any other adult who is

legally responsible to support such dependents, along with copies of his most recently filed

income tax return or returns and a copy of his most recent pay check stub (indicating year-to-date

earnings), within twenty days of this order; and it is further

ORDERED, that at the conclusion of her representation of the respondent in this case,

the assigned Law Guardian shall submit her claim for compensation which shall be recomm-

ended by this Court for payment in full by the Appellate Division as approved by this Court. At

such time this Court will ascertain what amount, if any, respondent's father shall pay towards the

cost of the legal services provided to the respondent and direct payment of that amount to the

State of New York (see, Matter of Cheri H. supra).

This constitutes the Order of the Court.

E N T E R:

________________________________

JOHN M. HUNT

Judge of the Family Court

Dated: Jamaica, New York

September 24, 2008