In re Cecilia R.
New York Court of Appeals
36 N.Y.2d 317, 327 N.E.2d 812, 367 N.Y.S.2d 770 (1975)
In New York State, juvenile courts could designate a wayward child as a person in need of supervision (PINS). If a government agency (plaintiff) filed a petition to designate a juvenile as a PINS, the court heard evidence and determined whether to apply the designation. After that hearing, there was a dispositional hearing to determine the appropriate placement for the PINS to receive treatment and rehabilitation. Placement in a private facility was preferable to placement in the state juvenile facility because private facilities provided treatment and some amount of freedom, while the state juvenile facility was more akin to a penal facility. A government agency filed a PINS petition concerning 13-year-old Cecilia R. (defendant) as a PINS because her foster family could not control her. The court found that Cecilia was a PINS and remanded her to a detention facility until the dispositional hearing, at which the court would announce its ruling as to Cecilia’s placement. When the hearing began, the court was informed that Cecilia was in the hallway outside the courtroom, but the court did not call Cecilia to come in, and the court began the hearing without her. Cecilia’s probation officer explained that because of Cecilia’s behavior, all the potential private facilities had declined to accommodate Cecilia. The probation officer recommended Cecilia’s placement in the state juvenile facility. A social worker testified that Cecilia’s behavior was a normal response to family difficulties and that one of the private facilities had rejected Cecilia because of a wrongful suspicion of drug abuse. After discussions between the court, the law guardian, and Cecilia’s mother, the court asked Cecilia to enter the hearing. The court then announced that Cecilia was ordered to be placed in the state juvenile facility. Cecilia appealed, arguing that the court deprived her of her due-process rights because except for announcing its ruling, the court held the hearing in Cecilia’s absence.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Fuchsberg, J.)
Dissent (Jasen, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 710,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.