At the conclusion of a dispositional hearing in these juvenile delinquency proceedings,

the Court placed the respondent, Arnold P., in the custody of the Commissioner of the New York

City Administration for Children's Services ("ACS") for a period of 18 months for placement in

a non-secure setting with an authorized agency under the new Close to Home initiative for

juvenile delinquents(Fam. Ct. Act §§352.2 [1] [c]; 353.3 [1], [2], [2-a] [5]).^[FN1]

Based upon information provided to the Court subsequent to respondent's placement with [*2]

ACS, the proceedings were recalendared upon the Court's own motion pursuant to Family Court

Act §353.3 (6) in order to determine whether the respondent's placement with ACS should be

continued, modified, or terminated.^[FN2]

Under the Close to Home initiative,ACS placed Mr. P. in the care of the St. John's Home

for Boys, which is located in Far Rockaway, Queens County. St. John's Home for Boys("St.

John's"), an authorized agency defined by Social Services Law §371 (10), which is authorized

"to operate and maintain non-secure and limited secure facilities" (Social Services Law§404 [1]),

for the placement of juvenile delinquents.^[FN3]

According to information provided to the Court, St. John's non-secure facility is a "group

home" which does not have physically restrictive construction, hardware and procedures, but

rather is designed with unlocked entry doors which are unlocked from the inside, but equipped

with a 30 second delay mechanism to keep the door from immediately opening to allow a person

to exit the group home. St. John's group home is staffed by agency counselors who "are

authorized to only use persuasion, but not force" to prevent residents from leaving the facility

without permission. [*3]

The respondent arrived at St. John's on October 19, 2012 pursuant to the Court's order

of disposition.^[FN4] During the reopened proceedings the Court was informed that Mr. P. absconded from St. John's on October 22, 2012, which was three days after he arrived at the agency, and

that he had not returned. Despite the fact that respondent was physically absent from St. John's as

of October 22, 2012, ACS failed to provide the Family Court with any notice that he was absent

without official authorization (i.e., "AWOL") until an ACS court liaison informally provided the

Court with a single page document captioned "25 Day Follow-Up Report" on January 4, 2013,

which was 2½ months after respondent went AWOL from St. John's.

The January 4, 2013 report also indicated that subsequent to respondent's unauthorized

departure from St. John's on October 22, 2012, he was again arrested. These arrests involved

respondent's suspected participation in a series of five separate robberies in Queens County, each

of which appeared to have been committed after he left St. John's on October 22, 2012.^[FN5] [*4]

II

Proceedings upon the sua sponte motion filed pursuant to Family Court Act §353.3 (6)

and §355.1 were conducted over the course of several days. The Court heard the testimony of

four witnesses, Luce Cardenas, a caseworker employed by St. John's; Micah Hunter, an ACS

Placement and Permanency Specialist; Rhonda Moore, the Director of the ACS Movement

Control and Communications Unit ("MCCU"); and Tara Simpson, an ACS Close to Home

Intake and Assessment planner. Each of these witnesses had personal knowledge concerning

respondent's placement with ACS and St. John's under the Close to Home initiative.

Luce Cardenas testified that she is "a case planner" employed by St. John's Group Home

for Boys, and her function is to facilitate the provision of services to a respondent and his family

"in order to prepare him to go back into the community." According to Ms. Cardenas, she first

met Arnold P. on October 19, 2012 when he initially arrived at St. John's group home. They met

for a brief period during which Ms. Cardenas introduced herself, outlined the services which

were to be provided by St. John's, and obtained family contact information from the respondent.

According to Ms. Cardenas, on Monday, October 22, 2012, the respondent went AWOL

from St. John's when he simply "walked away" while he and another resident of the program

were being escorted by an agency counselor to a medical appointment which was scheduled in

the community near the St. John's facility. Ms. Cardenas testified that due to the fact that the

respondent absconded from St. John's within three days of his arrival, the agency had not devised

a definite "service plan" for him, and she did not see respondent again until February 5, 2013

when she saw him in jail on Rikers Island.

Ms. Cardenas testified that after Arnold absconded from St. John's she and other agency [*5]

personnel made some efforts to locate him. These efforts including notifying ACS personnel

in charge of the Close to Home initiative that the respondent was AWOL from St. John's, and

a request that ACS "issue an ACS warrant" for his apprehension. Telephone calls and two

unannounced visits were made to the home of respondent's father and step-mother, and the

guidance counselor at the high school Arnold last attended was contacted. The only information

that was obtained came from respondent's step-mother who informed St. John's that on one

occasion after October 22, 2012 she saw Arnold in the family residence, but he fled before she

could call the police. None of the efforts made by St. John's staff were successful and respondent

remained at-large and unsupervised in the community, until he was eventually arrested for

committing a series of robberies which are unrelated to these juvenile delinquency proceedings.

Authorized agencies, such as St. John's, are required to "give immediate notice to

[OCFS], the [local social services] district and the family court when any juvenile delinquent

placed by the district for care in such authorized agency is absent from such placement without

consent" (Social Services Law §404 [13] [d] [i]).^[FN6] In turn, the local Department of Social

Services or district, is required to notify "[OCFS] and the family court when any juvenile

delinquent placed with the social services district is absent from such placement without

consent" (Social Services Law §404 [13] [d] [i]). Notwithstanding the statutory mandate, no

notice of respondent's absence from St. John's was provided to the Court prior to January 4,

2013. The Court is also unaware of whether and when St. John's or ACS notified OCFS that

respondent was AWOL from St. John's. [*6]

Micah Hunter, an ACS Placement and Permanency Specialist testified that his duties

include monitoring the performance of authorized agencies in which adjudicated juvenile

delinquents are placed under the Close to Home initiative. According to Mr. Hunter, the purpose

of this monitoring is to ensure that the agencies are providing the juveniles and their families

with necessary services. One of his tasks is to review to permanency plans devised by the

authorized agencies for the juveniles in their care (see, Fam. Ct. Act §355.5; see e.g., Matter of

Martin E., 23 AD3d 959 [2005]; In re W.B., Jr., 55 Cal4th 30, 45, 281 P3d 906, 913-914 [Sup

Ct 2012]). In addition, Mr. Hunter is responsible for reviewing aftercare supervision plans for the

supervision of juvenile delinquents when they are conditionally released back to their

communities (Executive Law §510-a).

Mr. Hunter testified that he first met Arnold P. at the Crossroads secure detention facility

where he was held pending the adjudication of these proceedings. During this meeting, Mr.

Hunter discussed the Close to Home initiative program with the respondent and obtained

information relating to whether ACS should accept Arnold into Close to Home. After this initial

meeting, the next time Mr. Hunter saw the respondent was when he visited him in jail on

February 5, 2013 where he was being held on the robbery charges.

Rhonda Moore, the Director of Movement Control and Communications for ACS,

testified that her unit is responsible for the issuance of warrants by ACS requesting the

apprehension and return of adjudicated juvenile delinquents who run away from non-secure

Close to Home initiative placements (Social Services Law §404 [13] [d], [e]). According to Ms.

Moore, when an adjudicated juvenile delinquent runs away or becomes "AWOL" from a

placement at an authorized agency, the agency is required to provide notice of that occurrence to [*7]

the Movement Control and Communications Unit ("MCCU") of ACS within one hour of

discovering that the youth is missing.

The Close to Home initiative statute authorizes a local department of social services "to

issue a warrant for the apprehension and return of a juvenile delinquent under the jurisdiction of

the district who has run away from a facility run by the district or an authorized agency" (Social

Services Law §404 [e]). According to Ms. Moore, once her office receives notification from an

authorized agency that an adjudicated juvenile delinquent is AWOL, a warrant will be issued by

ACS upon the approval of Sarah Bass, the Executive Director of the ACS Close to Home

initiative.

Once approval to issue a warrant is granted by Ms. Bass, the warrant is signed or in this

Court's observation, merely initialed, by an ACS employee. According to Ms. Moore, ACS has

issued "hundreds" of warrants for juvenile delinquents who have become AWOL from

placement at an authorized agency, and ACS forwards the warrants to "select law enforcement

agencies" which were not identified at the hearing. A copy of the warrant is also forwarded to

the ACS Division of Legal Services by MCCU, but no missing persons report is filed with the

Police Department, and there is no request that Family Court issue a judicial arrest warrant for

the absent juvenile (Fam. Ct. Act §153).^[FN7]

Ms. Moore authenticated the original warrant which had been issued by ACS directing

the apprehension and return of Arnold P. on October 22, 2012. This warrant is clearly not in the [*8]

form of a warrant of arrest issued by a court, nor does the document purport to be a judicial

mandate compelling the arrest of any person.^[FN8] Instead, the ACS warrant is merely a white sheet

of paper bearing a New York City seal and the indication that it is a document from ACS which

is captioned as a Warrant for the Return of Arnold P., and stating the date of birth and date on which the juvenile ran away. There is a physical description of the juvenile, his primary address,

the date of placement and the name of the court making the placement. The document further

states that the juvenile ran away and is considered AWOL from St. John's and it directs that

respondent be apprehended and returned to ACS's Horizon Juvenile Center in the Bronx.

The document submitted in evidence also provides that the warrant may be executed by

any Police Officer or by a Peace Officer acting pursuant to his special duties and that it may be

executed at any time on any day. The document has a telephone number for the ACS MCCU and

the initials of an ACS staff member are written on a line designated "authorized signature" with

the date of October 22, 2012. On an appended page, there is a line "reviewed and approved by"

and the name Bass, Sarah is printed on that line. While there is a box at the top of the warrant in

which a photograph of the missing juvenile delinquent may be affixed, no photograph of the

respondent was attached, although the Close to Home initiative statute requires that the local

social services district "provide relevant law enforcement agencies . . . with any photographs of

any runaway or conditionally released juvenile delinquent for whom a warrant is issued" (Social

Services Law §404 [13]).^[FN9] [*9]

According to Ms. Moore, at the time that the ACS warrant was issued for Arnold P., ACS

procedure included transmission of the warrant by fax to "law enforcement" and to the ACS

Division of Legal Services. Ms. Moore explained that in respondent's case, although MCCU

attempted to fax the warrant to the Division of Legal Services, it was never received by them

"since it was faxed to a non-working fax number." Ms. Moore had no information as to whether

the warrant for respondent had successfully been faxed to any law enforcement agency or

whether the warrant was actually received by those public servants who were being relied upon

to effect the arrest of the juvenile. As of the time of her testimony, Ms. Moore indicated that

warrants issued by ACS for the apprehension of juvenile delinquents are now transmitted by

e-mail and that electronic confirmations of sending and receipt are utilized.

According to Ms. Moore, as of March 6, 2013, approximately 200 adjudicated juvenile

delinquents were placed with the ACS Close to Home initiative. The ACS Close to Home

initiative program has the capacity to service 305 adjudicated delinquents, so the program was at

about 67% capacity in March of this year. Insofar as AWOL juvenile delinquents and the

issuance of arrest warrants is concerned, Ms. Moore testified that ACS had issued 141 agency

warrants pursuant to Social Services Law §404 (13) (e) during the four month period which

encompassed September 2012 through December 2012. For the period of January 1, 2013 to

March 6, 2013, Ms. Moore indicated that ACS had issued another 281 agency warrants, about

twice as many as had been issued by ACS previously, for a total of 422 warrants from the

inception of the Close to Home initiative to March 6, 2013.

The fact that ACS has issued a total of 422 agency warrants for adjudicated juvenile [*10]

delinquents placed with the Close to Home initiative over a six month period is shocking. This

represents both an inability to control these juvenile delinquents as well as a potential threat to

public safety. Put simply, the total of 422 agency warrants is approximately twice the number of

actual juvenile delinquents who have been placed with ACS under the Close to Home initiative

and then placed, in turn, in the custody of authorized agencies under contract with ACS. Indeed,

Ms. Moore testified that multiple warrants have been issued for juvenile delinquents who

repeatedly go AWOL from placement.^[FN10] At the time that Ms. Moore testified there were 50

outstanding ACS warrants for 50 different juvenile delinquents who were then AWOL and

apparently could not be located and apprehended. In fact, these 50 unexecuted ACS warrants for

50 different juvenile delinquents represents an alarming 25% of the approximately 200

adjudicated juvenile delinquents placed in a non-secure setting with ACS under the Close to

Home initiative as of March 2013.

Tara Simpson, a Close to Home initiative Intake and Assessment Specialist employed by

ACS was the last witness. Ms. Simpson stated that respondent's placement with St. John's

followed the general placement protocol developed by ACS. The protocol involved a review of

the probation report and the report of the Mental Health Services Clinic psychologist, both of

which were utilized at the dispositional hearing, and both of which recommended that respondent

be placed away from home. ACS also reviewed respondent's school records and the order of

disposition entered by the Court and the provisions contained therein. Respondent was also

interviewed by Close to Home initiative personnel who also spoke to his father and step-mother [*11]

by telephone.

According to Ms. Simpson, based upon the information available to ACS Close to Home

initiative personnel, it was decided that St. John's was an appropriate placement agency for the

respondent, based upon its location near his family residence in Queens, its mainstream high

school program, and the nature of the respondent's juvenile delinquency cases.

Having considered the evidence adduced at the hearing upon the Court's motion, the

Court finds that the continued placement of the respondent is required and that he continues to

require placement, but at a higher level of supervision and security than that which is currently

available from the authorized agencies which are currently under contract with ACS to provide

non-secure care for juvenile delinquents. While respondent is presently detained by the

Department of Correction upon the indictment pending in the Supreme Court, there is a

sufficient and substantial change of circumstances set forth herein, justifying modification of the

October 4, 2012 orders of disposition (see, Fam. Ct. Act §355.1 [1]; Matter of Shatique B., 70

AD3d 1036, 1036-1037 [2010]; Matter of Chaz H., 298 AD2d 983, 984 [2002]).

Accordingly, the orders of disposition dated October 4, 2012 are modified from non-

secure placement with ACS for the Close to Home initiative, to placement with the New York

State Office of Children and Family Services with the direction that respondent be placed in a

limited secure facility (Fam. Ct. Act §§352.2 [1] [c]; 353.3 [2-a] [a], [3] [b]).^[FN11] Additionally, in [*12]

accordance with Family Court Act §355.1 (3), the 18 month period of placement contained in the

Court's order under Docket Number D-17668/12 dated October 4, 2012, and the 12 month period

of placement contained in the Court's order under Docket Number D-17667/12, are hereby

incorporated into the modified orders of disposition (Matter of Lorenzo A., 59 AD3d 441), and

pursuant to Family Court Act §353.3 (9), the Court directs that with respect to the order of

disposition entered under Docket Number D-17668/12, the Commissioner of OCFS shall confine

the respondent in a residential facility for a minimum period not to exceed 6 months (see, Matter

of Christopher E., 163 AD2d 385, 386 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 712 [1990]; Matter of Lavar

C., 185 AD2d 36, 42 [1992]).

While" close to home' is a preferable option for most children, it may be irrelevant or

counterproductive for some" (Sobie, Supplementary Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons

Laws of NY, Fam. Ct. Act §353.3, 2013 Cum Ann Pocket Part at 103), and in the case of Arnold

P., he derived none of the benefits which were intended by placing him with the Close to Home

initiative. As Mr. P.'s present legal circumstances demonstrate,"[t]he close to home' remedy

does not fit all cases; for at least a very few children away from home' may be a preferable

alternative" (id.).

As this Court has observed on a prior occasion, reform of the juvenile justice system is a

laudable enterprise (Matter of Luis T., 35 Misc 3d 1202[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50530[U] at *139),

but reform can only be accomplished where there are clear policies and procedures in place to

protect the health, safety and well being of juveniles, as well as the safety of the community in

which these juveniles reside. Concomitantly, ACS must be willing to enforce the policies of the [*13]

Close to Home initiative program through adequate monitoring of the authorized agencies and

review of the individual cases of juvenile delinquents. For its part, OCFS must fulfill its mandate

to scrutinize whether ACS is adequately providing for the needs of juvenile delinquents placed

under the Close to Home initiative (see, Social Services Law §404 [12]), and to require that any

deficiencies be corrected.

The concept of placing juvenile delinquents "close to home" is hardly new,^[FN12] and the

problems identified in this decision should be addressed promptly before tragedy befalls a

juvenile or an innocent citizen.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

E N T E R:

s/

__________________________________

JOHN M. HUNT

Judge of the Family Court

Dated: Jamaica, New York

April 30, 2013