A New York state appellate court held Thursday that the Family Court acted unlawfully in placing a mother under the supervision of New York City's child welfare agency just because she has experienced domestic abuse, further curtailing a controversial practice that's already banned elsewhere in the state.

In Matter of R., A., a five-judge panel of First Judicial Department affirmed an Oct. 9 Family Court order vacating an earlier order of supervision filed against the mother, identified as K.K., while a neglect case against the father played out in court.

With the ruling, the appellate court declared the practice by the New York City Administration for Children's Services, or ACS, to be unlawful in Manhattan and the Bronx, cementing a previous ruling that had already banned it in other counties in the state.

"We find that ACS's stated policy of monitoring the nonrespondent parent in such cases is not permitted under Family Court Act § 1017 or any other provision of the Family Court Act, including and especially where the reason ACS seeks supervision is that the nonrespondent parent is a domestic violence survivor," the panel wrote in the opinion.

The ruling comes on the heels of Matter of Sapphire W., decided in February, in which the Appellate Division's Second Judicial Department found that child welfare agencies lack the authority to surveil a parent just because their child's other parent was charged with abuse or neglect. The decision ended the practice in Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, Long Island and five counties in the lower Hudson Valley.

David Shalleck-Klein, a lawyer who represented the mothers in both cases, told Law360 that Thursday's ruling ensures that the previous holding continues to be binding on the whole state.

"This decision agrees with what impacted families have been saying for years: ACS' policy of surveilling parents not charged with anything is illegal," Shalleck-Klein said.

ACS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

ACS filed a case against the father, identified as A.R., in January 2024, accusing him of neglecting the child by being violent against K.K. in the child's presence. In the petition filed by ACS, the father is accused of grabbing the mother by the face, knocking her to the ground, then hitting, stomping and choking her until she briefly lost consciousness in front of their then-14-month-old child.

When police officers knocked on the door of the family's apartment following a 911 call made by a neighbor, the father grabbed a knife and threatened to kill K.K. if she spoke to them, according to court documents. The mother was left with scratches on her face and neck.

On Jan. 3, 2024, the family court released the child to K.K. "under ACS supervision," even though that such supervision had not been discussed on the record in the mother's presence. ACS said it was "standard procedure" to monitor a nonrespondent parent while the family court resolved an abuse or neglect case against the other parent, court documents show.

After being assigned a lawyer, K.K. moved to vacate the family court order in June 2024, saying she and the child had been subjected to more than 15 announced and unannounced home visits by an ACS caseworker in six months.

In an affidavit supporting the motion, K.K. described those visits as "traumatizing" and "intrusive and humiliating," arguing that they violate her Fourth Amendment and due process rights. She said the supervision reminded her "of the fear and anxiety of being abused," and harmed her ability to control her schedule and "live freely."

ACS later offered to stop supervising K.K. and told the court it agreed to vacating the portion of the January 2024 order that required supervision, without addressing the mother's legal arguments. On Oct. 9, the family court granted the mother's motion based on ACS' offer, but expressed concerns that the agency had agreed to stop monitoring her "for a reason that has not been made clear."

Represented by attorneys from Family Justice Law Center and the New York University School of Law Family Defense Clinic, K.K. asked the Appellate Division to declare the supervision unlawful. In reviewing the issue, the appellate court said the legality of ACS monitoring of a nonrespondent parent "raises a significant and novel issue that is likely to reoccur, yet evade review."

Citing Sapphire W., the panel concluded that absent a court-ordered removal of a child, state law does not permit supervision of a nonrespondent parent who has been caring for the child.

"Essentially, the ACS policy at issue in this case permits it to surveil the mother simply because the child's father committed acts of domestic violence against her," the panel wrote. "We cannot condone a policy based on this faulty and unlawful premise."

Shalleck-Klein said the ruling sends a clear message about ACS' overreach, particularly toward vulnerable families.

"The court saw through the government's machinations to evade judicial review, and put an end to its pervasive and pernicious practice that traumatized countless families," he said.

K.K. is represented by David Shalleck-Klein and Lewis Bossing of Family Justice Law Center and Christine Gottlieb of New York University School of Law Family Defense Clinic.

ACS is represented by Muriel Goode-Trufant, D. Alan Rosinus Jr. and Rebecca L. Visgaitis.

The case is In the Matter of R., A., case number 2024-06363, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department.

--Editing by Alanna Weissman.