PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Trevon G. was remanded to the care of the commissioner on 9/5/2019, after the filing of the underlying neglect petition on 12/18/18. Trevon has been placed in residential congregate care since September 2019; during that time, he has left placement and returned to his mother, Ms. G., on many occasions. The instant combined PH and QRTP hearing to determine if Trevon should remain in a qualified residential treatment program (QRTP) began on December 14, 2021, and concluded on April 26, 2022. ACS argues that Trevon must remain placed in a QRTP to adequately address his needs; the attorneys for the child and for Trevon's mother, ask that he be discharged to his mother's care or to a foster home.

This hearing was a combined QRTP/Permanency Hearing, and some of the evidence entered pertains to Trevon's sibling Elijah, which was not considered for the purposes of this decision. ACS entered the following exhibits into evidence: a Permanency Hearing report dated 3/29/22 as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, the redacted QI report dated 1/11/22 as Petitioner's Exhibit 3, and a report from Saint John's Residence and School for boys dated 4/25/22 as Petitioner's Exhibit 4. ACS presented testimony from Case Planner Hilgendorf from Saint John's Residence and the QI report author Ms. Papacena.

This decision pertains to a contested hearing pursuant to SSL §393(2), F.C.A. §353.7(3), §756b(3), §1055-c(2), §1091-a, and §1097, through which the Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA), 42 U.S.C. §672 and §675a are codified in NY state. This statute, in relevant part, is intended to ensure that children removed from their homes do not languish in restrictive, congregate settings unnecessarily. In this case, the Court is asked to determine the most appropriate and least restrictive placement possible for Trevon. Specifically, in order to maintain Trevon's current placement, the Court must determine whether 1) Trevon's needs can/cannot be met through a placement in family-based foster care; 2) a group placement is the most effective and appropriate placement; 3) that is the least restrictive possible placement given Trevon's needs; and 4) such placement is consistent with the long- and short-term planning goals in place for Trevon.

The Court has reviewed all the evidence and testimony in the case and agrees with the attorneys for the Child and Ms. G. The Court finds that ACS has failed to meet its burden under FFPSA. This child has been in group care since 2019. It is clear from the testimony and exhibits that Trevon has strengths even as he has struggled tremendously in the last several years. Reports indicate that he engages in school when present and has positive relationships with staff, particularly his MST-FIT worker, and provides caretaking help for his mother who is currently undergoing cancer treatment. But Trevon has also exhibited inappropriate behaviors and difficulty with consistency and is not fully engaged in school or therapeutic services due to his frequent AWOC status. Of most concern, the most recent report from Saint John's contains concerning information about an incident in Ms. G.'s home where Ms. G. reported that Trevon hit her in the head with a computer. The record also contains evidence that Trevon has repeatedly expressed his desire to leave congregate care, and as his mother's attorney stated in his summation, Trevon votes with his feet by leaving his placement and going to his mother's home. His mother supports his full time return to her home despite the most recent incident.

The information presented by Petitioner is stale and does not support continued placement in a QRTP. The QI report states that the QI evaluator reviewed evaluations and assessments of Trevon from June and December of 2020. This is simply not recent enough nor sufficient to be truly informative to the Court; anecdotal reports of Trevon's functioning are more recent, as is the most recent letter from Saint John's, but the Court cannot continue to place a child in residential care based on such dated assessment information. The report also indicates that only now is the agency considering "trauma -focused mental health therapy" (see page 5 of 5.) Given that he has been placed since 2019, it seems likely that he would have benefited from this several years ago. Additionally, the QI report gives as the reason that Trevon is unable to return home as "due to being remanded." (see page 1 of 1.) This circular logic is specifically what the law is designed to redress.

The agency did not demonstrate that it has recently explored either therapeutic foster care placements or considered whether providing services to Ms. G. would allow Trevon to return home. Finally, the fact that the agency has not arranged sibling visits while Trevon is at Saint John's speaks volumes; he has consistently articulated his desire to see his sibling and not being [*2]able to do does not promote Trevon's sense of connection and stability.

A QRTP is only an appropriate placement when it is the least restrictive placement possible. It is true that Trevon has some positive relationships at Saint John's and that it provides a place to go occasionally. But it is clear, based on Trevon's frequent trips out of placement, that whatever he is getting at the QRTP is not building towards a longer-term strategy. Continuing his placement there would be to continue a legal fiction. All parties know that Trevon will not remain at the Agency. It is time to develop a plan that will work with Trevon in the community and allow him to develop longer term skills and strategies. The agency must work with the AFC to put a plan in place that acknowledges Trevon's significant needs, Ms. G.'s health condition, his clear desire to be at home, and his age (17 years old).

FFINDING AND ORDER ON QRTP: The Court finds that under the requirements of Family First, a structured return to Ms. G.'s home with extensive services in place is most consistent with Trevon's short- and long-term needs and is the least restrictive alternative.

As such, the Court orders that Trevon shall be trial discharged to his mother's care as detailed below.

The Agency shall:

1. Hold trial discharge conference within 3 weeks, including Trevon's team from Saint John's; The Legal Aid Society and Ms. G.'s team from the Bronx Defenders;

2. Submit referrals for any necessary community-based and in-home educational, medical, or therapeutic services within 4 weeks, including enrolling Trevon in an appropriate day treatment or other similar program for youth with special educational and mental health needs;

3. Make all appropriate referrals for in home services for Ms. G.;

4. Within 8 weeks, trial discharge Trevon to his mother Natova G.

Additionally, Ms. G. is ordered to:

1. continue to engage in mental health services;

2. attend the trial discharge conference held by the Agency;

3. sign a release for Trevon's dental care;

4. comply with all reasonable referrals made by the Agency for Trevon

ORDER ON PERMANECY HEARING: Based on the evidence and testimony presented, the Court continues Trevon's placement with ACS until the end of the next permanency hearing; finds that the Agency made reasonable efforts toward the prior goal; continues the goal of return to parent, and makes the above conditions required as future reasonable efforts.

WWHEREFORE, THIS CONSTITUTES THE ORDER OF THE COURT.