On April 18, 2025, the Presentment Agency filed a Petition pursuant to Article Three of the Family Court Act alleging that the Respondent, N.S., while detained at a juvenile detention center in Onondaga County, attempted to scale a fence to escape the facility on April 14, 2025, and that this act, if committed by an adult, would constitute a violation of Penal Law §205.10 and the crime of Attempted Escape in the Second Degree.

On May 5, 2025, Respondent's counsel filed a Motion to Dismiss through a letter dated that same day. Respondent's counsel asked the Court to dismiss the Petition pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law §210.4, which corresponds to Family Court Act §315.2, a provision that grants courts the authority to dismiss petitions in the furtherance of justice (Family Ct. Act §315.2). According to that provision, a court may dismiss a petition when, "even though there may be no basis for dismissal as a matter of law, dismissal is required as a matter of judicial discretion by the existence of some compelling further consideration or circumstances clearly demonstrating that a finding of delinquency or continued proceedings would constitute or result in injustice" (id.). As part of this determination, a court must consider "(a) the seriousness and circumstances of the crime; (b) the extent of harm caused by the crime; (c) any exceptionally serious misconduct of law enforcement personnel in the investigation and arrest of the respondent or in the presentment of the petition; (d) the history, character, and condition of the respondent; (e) the needs and best interest of the respondent; (f) the need for protection of the community; and (g) any other relevant fact indicating that a finding would serve no useful purpose" (id.).

On June 11, 2025, the Presentment Agency filed a Response in Opposition to the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, through which it addressed each of these factors.

The Court has closely reviewed these submissions and has determined that given the circumstances of this case, it must grant the Respondent's Motion and dismiss this matter in the furtherance of justice (In re Cory J.S., 125 AD3d 1272 [4th Dept 2015]). As the parties know, this Court placed N.S. in the care of custody of the Onondaga County Department of Children and Family Services, hereinafter "the Department," in September of 2024 pursuant to a [*2]proceeding held under Article 10 of the Family Court Act. The Department then placed N.S. in a Qualified Residential Treatment Program in Tompkins County, where she remained until April of 2025, when the Tompkins County Family Court remanded her to the Hillbrook Juvenile Detention Center in Onondaga County. N.S. allegedly tried to escape detention on April 14, 2025, and the Onondaga County Law Department filed the instant Petition to ask the Court to continue her remand in secured detention. The Tompkins County Family Court thereafter dismissed its charge against the Respondent, but the Respondent has nevertheless remained in detention pursuant to the Onondaga County charge. There is nothing to suggest that the Respondent harmed anyone while allegedly trying to escape, and there is no reason to believe, as the Presentment Agency contends, that if the Court dismisses this matter, other detained children will believe that they can attempt to escape detention with impunity (cf. Matter of James JJ., 206 AD3d 1091 [3rd Dept 2022]).

This child has experienced, in the words of the Presentment Agency, a "tremendous amount of trauma," and the Court is aware of the allegations contained within the Petition that the Department filed pursuant to Article Ten of the Family Court Act. According to the Department's filings, the child's father repeatedly raped her during the year immediately preceding her placement and threatened to beat her younger siblings if she disclosed his abuse. Given these circumstances, this Court placed N.S. in the Department's care upon its own request. It appears now that the Department, since it has failed to fulfil its statutory duty to identify and develop resources for children like N.S., wishes to bootstrap the juvenile justice system to compensate for its failure. The Court cannot sanction this. Indeed, the Third Department Appellate Division has held that regardless of how hard it may be to place a child pursuant to Article 10 of the Family Court Act, "it is not proper to leverage a juvenile delinquency proceeding in order to obtain a suitable placement" (Matter of A. WW., 237 AD3d 1420 3rd Dept 2025]). Children like N.S., whose parents have sexually abused them for years, often require a higher level of care, usually in a therapeutic setting, and this Court cannot understand why the Department, with its significant resources, has not prepared for a situation like this. Although the assigned caseworker has done everything she can in her limited role, the Department as an agency has failed to identify any suitable solutions. It has only indicated that if the Court releases N.S. from detention, it cannot and will not place her, and that instead, they will take her to a runaway shelter for homeless youth where they will not supervise her. That is unacceptable, and the Court will not use the authority vested in it through Article Three of the Family Court Act to punish this child for the Department's failure.

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED that the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the Petition filed under Docket No. D-XXXXX-XX is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Family Court Act §315.2.