New York State Assembly

 
•  Summary 
 
•  Actions 
 
•  Committee Votes 
 
•  Floor Votes 
 
•  Memo 
 
•  Text 
 
•  LFIN 
 
•  Chamber Video/Transcript 

A02113 Summary:

A02113 Actions:

A02113 Committee Votes:

Committee:JUDICIARY   Chair:Lavine      
DATE:05/19/2021AYE/NAY:21/0  Action: Favorable refer to committee Rules        
Lavine
Aye
Montesano
Aye
Zebrowski
Aye
Norris
Aye
Weprin
Aye
Walsh
Aye
Braunstein
Aye
Byrnes
Aye
Quart
Aye
Brown
Aye
Steck
Aye
Tannousis
Aye
Seawright
Aye
Joyner
Aye
Abinanti
Aye
Wallace
Aye
Walker
Aye
Cruz
Aye
McMahon
Aye
Mitaynes
Aye
Rajkumar
Aye

Committee:RULES   Chair:Gottfried      
DATE:05/25/2021AYE/NAY:29/0  Action: Favorable         
Heastie
Excused
Barclay
Aye
Gottfried
Aye
Hawley
Aye
Nolan
Excused
Giglio
Aye
Weinstein
Aye
Blankenbush
Aye
Pretlow
Aye
Norris
Aye
Cook
Aye
Montesano
Aye
Glick
Aye
Ra
Aye
Aubry
Aye
Brabenec
Aye
Englebright
Aye
Dinowitz
Aye
Colton
Aye
Magnarelli
Aye
Perry
Aye
Paulin
Aye
Peoples-Stokes
Aye
Benedetto
Aye
Lavine
Aye
Lupardo
Aye
Zebrowski
Aye
Thiele
Aye
Braunstein
Aye
Dickens
Aye
Davila
Aye

A02113 Floor Votes:

A02113 Text:

 
                STATE OF NEW YORK
        ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                          2113
 
                               2021-2022 Regular Sessions
 
                   IN ASSEMBLY
 
                                    January 14, 2021
                                       ___________
 
        Introduced  by  M.  of  A.  SIMON, BLANKENBUSH, COOK, HEVESI, McDONOUGH,
          PALMESANO, PRETLOW, SEAWRIGHT  --  Multi-Sponsored  by  --  M.  of  A.
          ABINANTI,  BENEDETTO,  COLTON,  GALEF,  GOODELL,  GOTTFRIED,  HYNDMAN,
          LUPARDO,  MONTESANO,  QUART,  REYES,  L. ROSENTHAL,  STECK,   WALLACE,
          WEPRIN,  ZEBROWSKI -- read once and referred to the Committee on Judi-
          ciary
 
        AN ACT to amend the domestic relations law and the family court act,  in
          relation  to  prohibiting the making of decisions concerning guardian-
          ship, custody or visitation or adoption petitions solely on the  basis
          of  a  parent's, guardian's or custodian's blindness; and to amend the
          social services law, in relation  to  prohibiting  the  department  of
          social  services  from  denying,  deciding  or  opposing a petition or
          request for guardianship, custody or  visitation  solely  because  the
          petitioner  is blind and to prohibiting a local social services agency
          from taking actions solely because a parent, custodian or guardian  is
          blind
 
          The  People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem-
        bly, do enact as follows:
 
     1    Section 1. This act shall be known and may  be  cited  as  the  "blind
     2  persons right to parent act".
     3    § 2. Legislative intent. The legislature finds the following:
     4    a. All blind Americans have the right to found a family, to freely and
     5  responsibly  decide  on the number and spacing of their children, and to
     6  retain the custody of their offspring on an  equal  basis  with  others.
     7  This  right  to  parent is rooted in the due process clause of the Four-
     8  teenth Amendment; however, blind people  are  often  stripped  of  these
     9  constitutional rights when state statutes, judicial decisions, and child
    10  welfare  practices  are based on the presumption that blindness automat-
    11  ically means parental incompetence.
    12    b. The presumption that blindness automatically means parental  incom-
    13  petence is a misconception. Given the proper tools and education, blind-
 
         EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                              [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                                   LBD01104-01-1
        A. 2113                             2
 
     1  ness  can be reduced to a physical nuisance. Because many sighted people
     2  do not understand the techniques that blind  people  use  to  accomplish
     3  everyday  tasks,  sighted  judges,  social  workers,  and state official
     4  assume  that  those  tasks cannot be completed by a blind person.  Using
     5  alternative techniques, blind people are capable of living  independent,
     6  productive  lives,  which  include  providing  safe and loving homes for
     7  their children. For example, blind people put small  tactile  dots  over
     8  markers  on  stoves,  washing  machines, and other flat surfaces so that
     9  they can independently operate those devices. Specific to raising  chil-
    10  dren,  blind  parents may have their young children wear a small bell on
    11  their shoes so the child's location can be known to the parents.   Blind
    12  parents  will  also  pull  a  stroller  behind them rather than push the
    13  stroller in front of them so their long white cane  or  guide  dog  will
    14  find obstacles or enter an intersection before the child and stroller.
    15    c.  When  sighted  parents  are involved in a guardianship, custody or
    16  visitation proceeding, their parental capabilities and how  those  capa-
    17  bilities  affect the best interest of the child are thoroughly evaluated
    18  through a careful review of evidence. Too often, however, judges summar-
    19  ily dismiss a blind parent's capabilities under the  misconception  that
    20  blind  people are incapable of most anything, despite evidence on record
    21  proving otherwise. Blind parents  involved  in  these  proceedings  must
    22  first  overcome any bias or low expectations of the judge, and then also
    23  provide evidence negating those  misconceptions  above  and  beyond  the
    24  normal burden placed on sighted parents.
    25    d.  Widespread  misconceptions  about  blindness often trigger a state
    26  agency to act, unsolicited, against the wishes of a blind parent. One of
    27  many countless, devastating reports of discrimination occurred in  2010,
    28  when  the  state  of Missouri wrongfully deemed a blind couple unable to
    29  care for their 2-day old daughter, who remained  in  protective  custody
    30  until  the  family was reunited after a 57-day battle. These parents had
    31  done nothing to demonstrate parental incompetence other  than  happening
    32  to have had a child and been blind, and yet the agency solely considered
    33  their  blindness  and decided to take action. In fact, the Missouri case
    34  and many others, the parents had voluntarily  contacted  social  service
    35  officials  themselves  in  order  to  seek  advice and assistance and to
    36  ensure that all of their child's needs were being met, but instead found
    37  themselves stripped of custody. Thus, hasty actions on the part of state
    38  social welfare officials  can  discourage  blind  parents  from  seeking
    39  services and assistance for which they and their children are eligible.
    40    e. During custody proceedings in cases of divorce, where one parent is
    41  blind and the other is sighted, the sighted parent will often try to use
    42  the  other  parent's blindness as a tool to deny the blind parent custo-
    43  dial rights. Because custody proceedings related to a divorce are  often
    44  hostile, the court should demand that each party demonstrate evidence of
    45  the  other  party's  incompetence. However, courts often assume that the
    46  sighted party is accurate in portraying the blind parent as incompetent,
    47  and make custody and visitation decisions based solely on the fact  that
    48  one  parent is blind. These decisions can range from limiting or denying
    49  visitation unless a sighted person is present at  all  times  to  simply
    50  denying  the blind parent all custodial rights. This is not only discri-
    51  minatory; it denies the blind parent a fair chance at custody and  opens
    52  courts to manipulation.
    53    §  3.  The  domestic  relations law is amended by adding a new section
    54  75-m to read as follows:
    55    § 75-m. Consideration of blindness  during  guardianship,  custody  or
    56  visitation  proceedings.  1. The court may not deny or decide a petition
        A. 2113                             3

     1  for guardianship, custody or visitation solely on  the  basis  that  the
     2  petitioner is blind. The blindness of the petitioner shall be considered
     3  relevant  only  to the extent that the court finds, based on evidence in
     4  the  record,  that the blindness affects the best interests of the child
     5  whose guardianship, custody or visitation is the subject  of  the  peti-
     6  tion.
     7    2. As used in this section, "blind" or "blindness" means:
     8    a. vision that is 20/200 or less in the best corrected eye; or
     9    b. vision that subtends an angle of not greater than twenty degrees in
    10  the best corrected eye.
    11    §  4.  The  domestic  relations law is amended by adding a new section
    12  111-d to read as follows:
    13    § 111-d. Consideration of blindness during  adoption  proceedings.  1.
    14  The  court  may not deny or decide a petition for adoption solely on the
    15  basis that the petitioner is blind.  The  blindness  of  the  petitioner
    16  shall  be  considered  relevant only to the extent that the court finds,
    17  based on evidence in the record, that the  blindness  affects  the  best
    18  interests of the child whose adoption is the subject of the petition.
    19    2. As used in this section, "blind" or "blindness" means:
    20    a. vision that is 20/200 or less in the best corrected eye; or
    21    b. vision that subtends an angle of not greater than twenty degrees in
    22  the best corrected eye.
    23    §  5.  The  family court act is amended by adding a new section 643 to
    24  read as follows:
    25    § 643. Consideration of blindness during adoption proceedings. 1.  The
    26  court may not deny or decide a petition for adoption solely on the basis
    27  that the petitioner is blind. The blindness of the petitioner  shall  be
    28  considered  relevant  only  to the extent that the court finds, based on
    29  evidence in the record, that the blindness affects the best interests of
    30  the child whose adoption is the subject of the petition.
    31    2. As used in this section, "blind" or "blindness" means:
    32    a. vision that is 20/200 or less in the best corrected eye; or
    33    b. vision that subtends an angle of not greater than twenty degrees in
    34  the best corrected eye.
    35    § 6. The family court act is amended by adding a new  section  658  to
    36  read as follows:
    37    §  658.  Consideration  of  blindness  during guardianship, custody or
    38  visitation proceedings. 1. The court may not deny or decide  a  petition
    39  for  custody  or  visitation  under this part or guardianship under part
    40  four of this article solely on the basis that the petitioner  is  blind.
    41  The blindness of the petitioner shall be considered relevant only to the
    42  extent  that  the court finds, based on evidence in the record, that the
    43  blindness affects the best interests of the  child  whose  guardianship,
    44  custody or visitation is the subject of the petition.
    45    2. As used in this section, "blind" or "blindness" means:
    46    a. vision that is 20/200 or less in the best corrected eye; or
    47    b. vision that subtends an angle of not greater than twenty degrees in
    48  the best corrected eye.
    49    § 7. The social services law is amended by adding a new section 393 to
    50  read as follows:
    51    §  393.  Consideration  of  blindness  during guardianship, custody or
    52  adoption proceedings. 1. The department may not deny, decide or oppose a
    53  petition or request for guardianship, custody or visitation  under  this
    54  article  solely  on  the  basis that the petitioner, parent, guardian or
    55  custodian is blind. The blindness of the petitioner, parent, guardian or
    56  custodian shall be considered relevant  only  to  the  extent  that  the
        A. 2113                             4

     1  blindness  affects  the  best interests of the child whose guardianship,
     2  custody or visitation is the subject of the petition.
     3    2.  The  department  shall not seek custody or guardianship of a child
     4  solely because the child's parent, guardian or custodian is  blind.  The
     5  blindness of the parent, guardian or custodian shall be considered rele-
     6  vant only to the extent that the blindness affects the best interests of
     7  the  child  whose  guardianship, custody or visitation is the subject of
     8  the petition.
     9    3. As used in this section, "blind" or "blindness" means:
    10    a. vision that is 20/200 or less in the best corrected eye; or
    11    b. vision that subtends an angle of not greater than twenty degrees in
    12  the best corrected eye.
    13    § 8. The commissioner of social services is authorized and directed to
    14  promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the implementation of the
    15  provisions of this act on or before its effective date.
    16    § 9. This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day  after  it  shall
    17  have become a law.