NY CHILD WELFARE - SIBLING ABUSE

Sadly, in my work as an attorney for children in child welfare cases, this fact pattern has become increasingly familiar in several cases I have worked on.

MATTER OF CG, 2026 NY Slip Op 50636 - Bronx Family Court 2026

"At issue in this combined Qualified Residential Treatment Program ("QRTP") hearing and motion for an order to directly place the subject child with family, instead of remaining in a "QRTP" is whether placement with family is in the child's best interest and whether the alternative setting available can meet the child's needs in a less restrictive environment. For reasons that follow, continued placement in the "QRTP" is denied, and the application for direct placement is GRANTED in part as indicated herein with a host of conditions.

The History of the Case:

On February 17, 2026, this matter was arraigned and the child C.G. removed from the care of Respondent, L.J., based on allegations in the filed sworn Petition, which asserted that C.G. (Dob XX/XX/2015), K. H. (dob XX/XX/2017), Ka.H. (dob XX/XX/2019), and D.V. (dob XX/XX/2016) are children under eighteen years of age whose physical, mental or emotional condition had been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of their mother, L.J, to exercise a minimum degree of care, in that: 1. The respondent mother, failed to protect the subject children: a. According the subject child K. H., she had told the respondent mother that her brother C.G. had raped^[2] her while they were living in Minnesota. According to the same, after this happened the family moved to New York. The allegation of neglect stems from the fact that respondent failed to protect or that no services were provided to K.H. or her siblings. According to the same, on or about February 8, 2026, the sibling C.H. had raped her in the home.

b. According to the respondent mother on or about February 13, 2025, she stated to ACS regarding C.G. "if you guys want him you can come take him." According to the same, she denies that K.H. ever told her that C.H. had raped her in Minnesota. According to the respondent mother, on or about December of 2025 Ka.H. had disclosed to her that C.G. was being "weird" and asked her to perform oral sex. According to the respondent, in response to this, she had a conversation with C.G. about the incident. Upon information and belief, the respondent took no other steps to intervene.

c. As a result of the respondent mothers neglect of the subject child K.H. the subject children Ka.H., C.G. and D.V. are also neglected children.

2. The respondent mother fails to provide the subject children with proper supervision and guardianship in that:

a. Paragraphs 1(a)-(c) are reiterated in the entirety.

b. As a result of the respondent mothers neglect of the subject child

K.H. the subject children Ka.H., C.G. and D.V. are also neglected children. (See, Petition dated February 17, 2026, bearing Docket No. NN-03963-26)

* * *

On or about March 13, 2026, the court assigned Attorney for the child ("AFC") filed an OSC for an order directing NYC Administration for Children Services ("ACS") to have the subject child reside with Jeanette Stemley and to commence an investigation of Ms. Stemley's home within twenty-four hours and thereafter approve Ms. Stemley, if qualified as a foster parent pursuant to FCA 1017(2)(a)(iii); and related relief.

On or about April 2, 2026, a hearing was held on the motion and testimony taken.

The hearing can be summarized as follows:

The subject child, C.G., is currently 10 years old and placed in a "QRTP" at Children's Village in Dobbs Ferry, New York. The facility is a secure, male-only residential program for children aged 7 to 12. Each child has their own individual room, and there are five staff members per shift for supervision. Bathrooms are shared but are in eyesight of staff. Cameras are present in common areas. C.G. attends school in this structured setting and receives all services on campus. He receives weekly individual therapy focused on decreasing sexualized abusive behavior, twice-weekly group therapy, and sees a psychiatrist monthly or as needed.

C.G. has been in Children's Village since March 16th, 2026. According to ACS", he was placed there because of the allegation that he penetrated his sibling, K.H. and made an inappropriate comment to another sibling, Ka.H.

His mother, the Respondent, Ms. J., and Ms. Stemley (sister-in-law) visit him every week. Ms. J. is also engaged in family therapy with C.G.

Proposed Placement with Jeanette Stemley:

Mrs. Jeanette Stemley is the subject child's sister-in-law and has offered her home as a direct placement resource, even without receiving foster care funds.

ACS declined to explore her as a resource due to the presence of other children in her home and the fact she has an ACS-indicated history, coupled with the fact that C.G. has just recently begun his treatment plan.

According to Ms. Stemley, her household consists of her husband (Lanina J.'s son) and four children: a 19-year-old male, an 18-year-old female, a 16-year-old female, and a 14-year-old male. If the application was approved, Ms. Stemley indicated she would rearrange living arrangements so C.G. would not share a room with anyone vulnerable; suggesting her youngest son could move to a daughter's room, and C.G. would have his own bed in her room, which has an en-suite bathroom and would agree to install cameras in the common areas in her home.

Ms. Stemley testified she works remotely, allowing her the flexibility to take C.G. to appointments and address his needs.

Ms. Stemley testified C.G. has previously stayed at her home a few times, including overnight, without any issues or concerning behavior. Ms. Stemley is aware of the allegations against C.G., including the accusation of rape and asking his sister to perform oral sex.

Ms. Stemley testified that she believes it is safe for C.G. to be alone with her children and is willing to follow any court orders, including installing cameras or door alarms if necessary. She discussed with C.G. the possibility of him living with her, and C.H. expressed interest.

Ms. Stemley and her children had a family meeting to discuss the situation, and her children are aware and supportive. Her daughters have visited C.G. at his current location.

Ms. Stemley testified she believes her home would be better suited for C.G., offering love and support from family, rather than being treated like an offender in a facility.

At the request of ACS, the court combined the hearing record of April 2, 2026, with the QRTP April 29, 2026, hearing record. ACS entered the following documentary evidence: Exhibit "1" Qualified Individual Report dated March 8, 2026 (pages 1-7); Exhibit "2" the Qualified Individual Assessment Summary Report dated March 8, 2026, and Exhibit "3" the The Child and Adolescent Level of Care Utilization System ("CALOCUS") Evaluation Report dated March 8, 2026.

Notably, the Qualified Individual Report dated March 8, 2026, provides in the narrative summary portion the following:

"... According to the Family Assessment and Service Plan, it was reported that [C.G.] sexually abused his sister [K.H]. It was confirmed that the child [C.G.] was caught and admitted to taking off her clothes and penetrating [K.H] with his private part as she slept. It was also reported that [C.G.] asked another sibling, [Ka.H] for oral sex. According to the Family Assessment and Service Plan, it was also reported that there is a prior history of sex abuse when the family resided out of state. The family continued to allow [C.G.] to reside in the same home as the other children after finding out about the abuse. It was reported that child [C.G.] was touched inappropriately by a 9-year-old family member when he was 3-4 years old." (See, Exhibit "1" at page 1-2)

* * *

The "CALOCUS" Evaluation Report dated March 8, 2026, indicates a composite score of a total of 19. Risk of Harm dimension score is reported at 4.

At the April 29, 2026 "QRTP" hearing, Ms. Stemley reiterated her desire to have C.G. in her home and explained the prior 2018 ACS indicated case involved allegation of excessive corporal punishment. The 2018 case did not go to trial, and no similar incidents have occurred since. According to Ms. Stemley, the daughter who was the subject of the 2018 case is now a college student living at home.

Ms. Stemley testified she last visited C.G. at Children's Village yesterday. She visits weekly, at times bringing her children, who are excited to see C.H. According to Ms. Stemley, C.G. enjoys playing board games with Ms. Stemley's children and shares updates about school and "uncomfortable things" he is experiencing. Ms. Stemley reiterates she believes she can provide the necessary supervision and replicate essential services at home.

Ms. Stemley repeated she will comply with whatever court orders that are issued, and arrange for monthly psychiatrists, group therapy, and family therapy, to gain C.G.'s direct placement.

In preparation for the placement, Ms. Stemley testified she has already spoken to the children's school about enrolling C.G. in the school, without disclosing the allegations.

C.G.'s placement in the "QRTP" is due to the rape. According to ACS, the long-term goal is for C.G. to return to a safe community environment and note his current positive engagement in services. ACS's recommendations are continued placement to maintain gains and address C.H.'s own trauma, as all necessary services have not "taken hold" yet.

ACS opposes the direct placement with Ms. Stemley, indicating placing C.G., at this time in a home with other children before he has fully engaged in appropriate services is premature, and sets the child up for failure. ACS argues the QRTP is the appropriate placement at this time, given the severity of the allegations and lack of engaged mental health services.

According to ACS, C.G.'s mother, Ms. J., reportedly prefers him to remain in his current setting until he is ready to return home, fearing regression and believing he needs 24/7 supervision. In ACS's view, C.H.'s needs cannot be met in a foster family home and that "QRTP" placement is the most effective, appropriate, and least restrictive environment, aligning with his goals, emphasizing C.G.'s clinical needs.

In addition, ACS questions Ms. Stemley's protective capacity due to her stated lack of concern regarding the underlying allegations, Finally, ACS argues the court cannot order the agency to certify a foster parent due to separation of powers but concedes the court can order a direct placement of the child with a relative with specific orders in place.

The AFC pressed the argument that the mental health services can be obtained outside the "QRTP" restrictive setting, and all stakeholders are committed to finding C.G. the required services. Placement in a "QRTP" is not necessary or the least restrictive option.

The Law:

In accord with the statutory framework, within 60 days from the child's placement in a "QRTP" facility, the agency must seek court approval of the placement and bears the ultimate burden to establish the "QRTP" placement is the most effective and appropriate level of care in the least restrictive environment, that it is consistent with the child's short-and long-term goals and in the child's best interest. (See, Social Services Law § 393 and Family Court Act § 1055-c).

In New York, a "QRTP" is a congregate care setting that meets strict state and federal requirements, including trauma-informed care, 24/7 licensed staff, family participation, and aftercare support. Under the Family First Prevention Services Act ("FFPSA"), "QRTP"s are intended for children whose needs cannot be met in a less restrictive setting, such as a foster family home. (See, Social Services Law § 393; § 409-h).

The legislative history of the "FFPSA" acknowledges that, "[a]lthough there is an appropriate role for congregate care placements in the continuum of foster care settings," these placements "should be used only for as long as is needed to stabilize the child or youth so they can return to a family-like setting" since "most children and youth, but especially young children, are best served in a family setting" (HR Rep 114-628, 114th Cong, 2d Session at 60) citied in Matter of Joseph D.L. (Keisha T.M.), 243 AD3d 48 (2nd Dept. 2025)(Ventura, J.); See also, Matter of Malachi B. (Administration for Children's Servs.), 228 AD3d 570 (1st Dept. 2024).

The "QRTP" assessment must show that no suitable family-based placement exists that can meet the child's needs. Matter of Joseph D.L. (Keisha T.M.), 243 AD3d 48 (2nd Dept. 2025)(Ventura, J.).

The "CALOCUS" Evaluation Report dated March 8, 2026, documents a composite score of 19, with the Risk of Harm dimension specifically rated at 4, indicating a high level of concern in that area, and offered to justify the continued need for C.G.'s structured placement.

The "CALOCUS" is a structured clinical decision-making tool used to assess service needs and guide level-of-care recommendations for children and adolescents between the ages of 6 and 18. It does so by evaluating six core dimensions that together provide a comprehensive picture of clinical severity, functional impairment, environmental context, and treatment readiness.

Each of the six dimensions captures a distinct but interrelated domain of the youth's presentation:

1. Risk of Harm — This dimension evaluates both acute and chronic safety concerns, including the potential for self-harm, suicidal behavior, aggression toward others, impulsivity, and vulnerability to victimization or exploitation. A score of 4 suggests significant and imminent risk factors that require close monitoring and possibly intensive intervention to ensure safety.

2. Functional Status — This area assesses the child's ability to function across key life domains such as home, school, and community. It includes evaluation of daily living skills, social functioning, academic performance, and behavioral regulation. Higher scores reflect greater impairment and difficulty meeting age-appropriate expectations.

3. Developmental, Medical, Substance Use, and Psychiatric Co-Morbidity — This dimension considers the presence of multiple co-occurring conditions and how they interact to complicate diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. It includes developmental disorders, chronic medical issues, substance use concerns, and psychiatric diagnoses, with higher scores indicating more complex and impactful comorbidity.

4. Recovery Environment: Stressors and Supports — This domain evaluates the external context in which the child lives, including family stability, caregiver capacity, exposure to trauma or stress, and the availability of social, educational, and community supports. It considers both risk factors (e.g., instability, conflict, lack of supervision) and protective factors (e.g., supportive caregivers, structured environment).

5. Resiliency and Treatment History — This dimension looks at the child's internal strengths, coping abilities, and prior experiences with treatment. It includes responsiveness to past interventions, history of engagement, and the degree to which the child has demonstrated the ability to recover from stressors or setbacks.

6. Treatment Acceptance and Engagement — This assesses the readiness, willingness, and ability of both the child and their caregivers to participate meaningfully in treatment. It includes factors such as insight into problems, motivation for change, adherence to recommendations, and consistency in attending services.

Each dimension is rated on a 5-point scale, where:

• 1 = Minimal need (little to no impairment or risk),

• 2 = Mild need (minor or situational concerns),

• 3 = Moderate need (clear but manageable difficulties),

• 4 = Serious need (significant impairment or risk requiring active intervention),

• 5 = Severe need (intense, pervasive, or dangerous conditions requiring immediate and intensive services).

After individual dimension scores are assigned, each is translated into a Need Intensity category (e.g., Low, Moderate, Significant, or Severe). These categories are not interpreted in isolation; rather, they are integrated across all six dimensions to determine the overall clinical picture and appropriate Level of Care (LOC). The total composite score (in this case, 19) is then matched to a recommended service intensity level, which may range from basic outpatient services to more intensive options such as intensive in-home services, day treatment, or residential care, depending on established "CALOCUS" thresholds.

In summary, a composite score of 19, combined with a Risk of Harm score of 4, suggests a clinically significant level of need, particularly in the area of safety, and supports consideration of a structured and potentially intensive treatment approach to ensure stabilization and ongoing support of the subject child.

In the context of a "QRTP", the "CALOCUS" Evaluation Report helps interpret and weigh assessment results. The report is only a tool to assist the court in evaluating and weighing the child's clinical needs. (See, generally, Calocus Child and Adolescent Level of Care Utilization System, Child and Adolescent Version 2010, American Association of Community Psychiatrists, October 17, 2010)(www.chpw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CALOUS-Instument-2010.pdf)(last visited May 1, 2026)

The subject child is 10 years old. Although unfortunate, being a survivor of sexual abuse and having purportedly committed acts of rape himself weigh heavily in the analysis and do significantly signal a need for extensive treatment. However, those facts alone cannot control the outcome in the context of "QRTP" placement.

Doli incapax is a Latin phrase meaning "incapable of wrongdoing." It refers to the legal presumption that children below a certain age cannot form criminal intent. Research indicates young children are considered not only free of malice but especially capable of reform. See generally, Family Court Act § 301.2(1)(a)(iii). A 10-year-old child who has purportedly committed a sexual offense requires immediate, highly specialized therapeutic intervention. New York State's juvenile justice system and related statutes reflect a strong emphasis on rehabilitation, family placement, and community services over punitive incarceration for the very young. See, generally, New York State Raise The Age Implementation Task Force, https://www.ny.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/NYS_RTA_Task_Force_First_Report.pdf (last visited May 1, 2026); see also, Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551(2005) (unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed under 18 years old and acknowledged that juveniles possess distinct characteristics that differentiate them from adults, particularly regarding their capacity for rehabilitation and moral culpability).

Family Court Act § 1055 reflects a legislative presumption in favor of family-based settings when possible and in the context of a "QRTP" placement, the test is that no suitable family-based placement exists that can meet the child's needs. Matter of Joseph D.L. (Keisha T.M.), supra.

The record here makes clear ACS's primary objection to the placement with family is rooted in the fact that Ms. Stemley has other children, and C.G. had not yet sufficiently engaged in sexual reactive services. However, this court finds the alternative setting available can meet the subject child's needs in a less restrictive environment, (Family Court Act § 1055-c[2][c][i][B]) and further finds orders can be put in place to ensure services are provided consistent with the short-and long-term permanency goals.

Ms. Stemley has demonstrated a willingness and ability to provide a structured, supervised environment, to comply with court-imposed safeguards, and to ensure continuity of services. The court is satisfied that appropriate conditions and oversight can mitigate identified risks.

Accordingly, the court finds that placement with Ms. Stemley constitutes a viable, less restrictive alternative that can meet the child's needs while advancing the statutory preference for family-based care.

Therefore, the subject child, C.G.'s continued placement in the "QRTP" is denied, and the motion for direct placement is granted over ACS's objection. This court orders the direct placement of the subject child, C.G. to the care and custody of the Ms. Stemley stayed 35 days from the date of this order, under the following conditions:

1) Ms. Stemley is to cooperate with ACS supervision including announced or unannounced home visits; and

2) Ms. Stemley shall comply with all ACS recommended services for C.G., including any reasonable referrals in writing, including monthly psychiatrists, group therapy, and family therapy, engage in individual and family therapy as the service providers may direct;

3) Ms. Stemley shall ensure the subject child, C.G. attends school

4) Ms. Stemley shall enforce an order of protection barring contact between C.H. and K.H;

5) that C.H. NOT be left alone with any child below the age of 14 years old;

6) A copy of the underlying neglect petition and this order shall be provided to all services providers;

7) ACS shall conduct a clothing inventory; the child has his own bed in the Stemley home and dresser;

8) ACS shall develop a treatment plan for C.G., consistent with the subject child's care and welfare and shall provide meaningful and supportive services to C.H., including Problematic sexual behavior cognitive behavioral therapy and Trauma focused cognitive behavioral therapy and ensure the subject is enrolled in the local school and engaged in summer activities including day-camp;

9) It is further ordered that ACS shall take any protective measure necessary to ensure the protection of the subject child and prevent any violations of this order;

10) ACS shall provide the court with a report within twenty days of this order indicating the progress of the release plan, and what sexual behavior cognitive behavioral therapy and trauma focused therapy recommended and ensure the subject is enrolled in the local school;

11) All parties shall take notice pursuant to section 1113 of the Family Court Act, an appeal must be taken within thirty days of receipt of the order by appellant in court, thirty-five days from the mailing of the order to the appellant by the clerk of the court, or thirty days after service by a party or Attorney for the Child upon the appellant, whichever is earliest.

[1] Because this case involves sensitive matters, this court will use initials to refer to the subject children. C.G. is a 10-year-old child born in xx xx-2015.

[2] Notably, there is no factual assertions describing the specific conduct to constitute "rape" in the petition, nor is there any assertion that there is a corresponding delinquency matter pending. According to ACS, there is no juvenile delinquency allegation against C.G., as the NYPD did not pursue a criminal investigation due to his age. Generally, there is a rebuttable presumption in New York that a 10-year-old child lacks capacity to form criminal intent."