My child welfare work is in Massachusetts (where I also practice). A “suspended judgment” is a distinct, express dispositional option in New York under FCA §1053(a)—but Massachusetts Juvenile Court does not have an equivalent statutory disposition by that name. While not labeled “suspended judgment,” perhaps Massachusetts judges can achieve similar results through an adjudication with conditions: a) Court adjudicates b) Leaves child at home or in current placement c) Orders services and compliance d) Sets a review hearing e) Retains jurisdiction.
MATTER OF AN ARTICLE 10 NEGLECT PROCEEDING ADMIN. FOR CHILDREN’S SERVS.-BRONX v. AT, 2025 NY Slip Op 25257 – Bronx Family Court 2025:
“ANGEL CRUZ, J.
The central issue in this dispositional hearing is whether to impose a
suspended judgment or allow the finding of neglect to remain against
Respondent A.T., based on her admitted use of excessive corporal
punishment against her son, N.G. The dispositional terms concerning her
spouse, Respondent J.J., are not contested.[1]
At the September 4, 2025, hearing, Respondent A.T. testified that she
is employed by the New York City Police Department (NYPD) for 17
years—initially as a police officer and later as a detective. However,
following the neglect proceedings and her related criminal arrest, she
was demoted to police officer, suspended, for 30 days, without pay, and
placed on modified duty, performing only administrative tasks. She also
faces internal disciplinary charges and has been the subject of multiple
online and print media reports. (See: NY Daily News, “Manhattan cop charged with whipping her young son, 10, with belt: DA,” last visited Sept. 5, 2025; Patch, “Washington Heights Cop Arrested for Whipping Her Child,” posted Feb. 21, 2025; NY12, “NYPD officer arrested, facing assault and child endangerment charges,” posted Feb. 18, 2025.)
Although the court found portions of Respondent’s testimony at the
dispositional hearing was evasive and inconsistent, she did acknowledge
that her relationship with N.G. is currently strained due to her own
actions. She expressed a desire to rebuild their bond through supervised
visitation and recognized that this process would require time and
effort.
On direct examination, Responded stated:
“I feel bad for my son and the way that he feels now. I
deeply regret that, and I do feel very remorseful for everything that
he’s gone through as well as what my family has gone through.” “This
will never happen again because I now have a different way of seeing
things, thinking about discipline.” “My goal is to get to where it once
was and better than where it once was, but currently right now it’s very
strained and it’s gonna be a lot of work on both of our parts.”
***
She further testified that she completed 15 sessions of anger
management, parenting classes, and individual therapy to develop
healthier coping mechanisms.
Under New York law, child protection proceedings are remedial—not
punitive—and are designed to serve the best interests of children by
addressing threats to their welfare. See Sarahi O. Josefina D.L., 70 Misc 3d 1209(A); (Bronx Co. Fam. Ct. 2020); In Re Leenasia C., 154 AD3d 1 (1st Dept. 2017).
A suspended judgment is a dispositional option under FCA§1053(a),
intended to provide Respondent who complies with the court’s
dispositional plan the opportunity to later seek dismissal of the
neglect finding and petition. See In re M.N., 16 Misc 3d 499 (Monroe Co. Fam. Ct. 2020).
This relief is not a reward nor does it condone the underlying
conduct. Rather, it recognizes that in certain circumstances, the
child’s best interests are served by allowing the parent a clean slate.
See In re Danielle A., 153 AD3d 426 (1st Dept. 2017); In re M.N., 16 Misc 3d 499 (Monroe Co. Fam. Ct. 2020).
In determining whether to grant a suspended judgment, the court must consider several factors, including:
• Whether the parent has adequately addressed the issues leading to the child’s removal;
• The respondent’s prior history;
• The seriousness of the offense;
• Demonstrated remorse;
• Compliance with court-ordered services;
• Efforts to rehabilitate the parent-child relationship See In re Maximus H., 25 Misc 3d 1241(A)(Monroe Co. Fam. Ct. 2009).
ACS and the Attorney for the Child (AFC) argue that although
Respondent A.T. expressed remorse and completed services, she violated
court orders by pressuring N.G. to discuss the case during visits,
necessitating a return to supervised visitation. They contend this
behavior reflects a lack of genuine insight and undermines her
eligibility for a suspended judgment.
However, counsel appears to overlook the remedial nature of child
protection proceedings. A suspended judgment is not granted for the
benefit of the respondent, but rather for the benefit of the child. A
gainfully employed parent who can financially support the household
serves both the child’s welfare and broader public policy.
After weighing the relevant factors and considering the testimony and
argument presented at the September 4, 2025, hearing, the court
exercises its discretion and finds that granting Respondent A.T. a
suspended judgment is in the best interest of the child and society.
This decision is made over the objections of ACS and the AFC.
While the AFC correctly notes that the Respondent may seek future
review of the dispositional terms under FCA §1061, including retroactive
relief and vacatur of the neglect finding, this court finds that the
immediate impact on Respondent’s employment and career advancement
outweighs the rationale for delaying such relief. As a first-time
Respondent who has accepted responsibility and endured significant
public scrutiny, and effects on her employment, the consequences she has
already faced—including criminal sanctions and reputational damage—are
sufficient and to continue to impede her employment is not in the best
interest of this family.
Ultimately, the purpose of this disposition is remedial, not punitive.
Accordingly, the court imposes the following DISPOSITIONAL TERMS:
1. Release D.J. (jointly with Respondent J.J.);
2. Release of N.G. to the NRF, Mr. G. Visits shall be supervised with the discretion to expand on notice to the AFC;
3. Six-month ACS supervision for A.T. with a suspended
judgment scheduled to expire March 3, 2026, at which time the court will
dismiss the petition contingent on full compliance. ACS shall provide
progress reports every 30 days;
4. Comply w/ACS supervision including announced and
unannounced visits with a limited order of protection that includes no
corporal punishment against D.J. or N.G. be exercised;
5. Comply with reasonable referrals on notice to Respondent counsel and sign all necessary releases to confirm compliance;
6. Required services: anger management, parenting skills and
individual therapy, preventive services, compliance with limited
protection order.
The parties are directed to appear for a settlement conference on
October 28, 2025, at 11AM in Part 8 on the following dockets:
V-XXXXX-25/25A and 0-XXXXX-25, and V-XXXXX-25.
[1] Release of D.J. and comply with preventive services;
2. Comply with ACS supervision including announced and unannounced
visits with a limited order of protection that states no corporal
punishment against D.J.;
3. Comply with reasonable referrals on notice;
4. 3-month supervision — suspended judgment to expire November 3, 2025.”