My 15 seconds of Fame:-)
This is from a statement sent out by the city concerning a case I worked on:
An appellate court has reversed a Manhattan Family Court’s denial of an abuse finding in a situation where a mother sent her child to rob a bank. The case involved a mother, Tamara Rivers, who in 2003 directed her then 12-year-old son to enter a Manhattan Citibank branch, present a demand note and steal $30,000. A subsequent investigation found that the mother and teller had conspired. The youth was then removed from the mother's care. In its original ruling, the Family Court had found that the mother only neglected her son, but the Appellate Court's ruling now establishes a finding of abuse. This ruling is particularly important, because it could impact future cases where a parent uses his or her child in furtherance of criminal activity (i.e. in drug cases). Marta Ross in Appeals handled the case, with assistance from Paralegal Tiffany Abreu. Abbe Kalnick of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) handled the case at the trial level, and Laurie Smith in our Family Court Division handled some proceedings on a related legal issue. Most major press picked up the story today, and the Daily News is also planning an editorial for this weekend.
MEDIA COVERAGE:
Ordering a Child to Rob a Bank Is Abuse, Appeals Court Rules
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
The New York Times
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Is it child abuse to order your 12-year-old son to rob a bank? A Family Court judge did not think so, but an appeals court has ruled that indeed it is, handing a victory to city lawyers who hope to apply the ruling to other cases in which parents involve their children in crimes.
The ruling on Tuesday by the Appellate Division First Department, while legally significant, did not change the status of the mother, Tamara Rivers, who served four months in jail for the 2003 robbery. She is now allowed to visit her son, who is living with a grandmother.
The Appellate Division found that a child need not be physically harmed to be considered abused. A child abuse finding can lead to a loss of parental rights.
"We do get a significant number of cases in which parents use their children as mules to further their own criminal behavior," said Marta Ross, a lawyer with the city's Law Department. The ruling provides the city with more of a basis to wrest parental rights from mothers and fathers with a pattern of abuse, she said.
On Aug. 28, 2003, the boy in question took a taxi to a Citibank branch on Avenue A in Manhattan and handed a teller a note he had written that read: "Give me $30,000 or I will shoot you," according to the ruling.
The teller, who was also charged in the robbery, handed the money to the boy, who put it in his pockets, the ruling said. He got back into the cab, and delivered the cash to his mother.
Ms. Rivers pleaded guilty to grand larceny and endangering the welfare of a child. A Family Court judge charged her separately with neglect, a charge that is ordinarily applied when a mother allows her child to skip school frequently.
The Family Court judge found that "the risk of physical injury was too attenuated," but lawyers for the city appealed the finding.
In the decision on Tuesday, a five-judge appeals panel ruled that Ms. Rivers "created a substantial risk of injury" that could have resulted in her son's death and that the fact that the boy was not injured did not mean he was not abused.
"He was lucky," the justices wrote. "The fact that the child was not shot does not lessen the severity of the danger the child faced due to his mother's actions."
* * *
Panel Finds 'Abuse' In Mom's Ordering Of Son to Rob Bank
By Mark Fass
New York Law Journal
Thursday, February 10, 2005
A woman who directed her 12-year-old son to rob an East Village bank is guilty of not only neglect but also abuse, the Appellate Division, First Department, has ruled.
"A child need not sustain physical injury to support a finding of abuse, 'as long as the evidence demonstrates that the parent sufficiently endangered the child by creating a substantial risk of injury,'" the five-judge panel unanimously held in In re Rashard D., 5150, quoting Matter of Angelique H., 215 AD 2d 318.
"Respondent intentionally put her child in such a situation," the panel added.
Tamara Rivers pleaded guilty in 2003 to grand larceny and child endangerment after instructing her son Rashard to rob a Citibank branch.
"On the day of the robbery, the child arrived by taxi and instructed the driver to wait for him," the panel wrote. Rashard entered the bank and passed a note to the teller that read, "Give me $30,000 or I will shoot!"
Though only 12, Rashard stood 5 feet 5 inches and weighed 175 pounds. Only his SpongeBob SquarePants socks betrayed his true age, witnesses said.
The teller handed over the money, which the boy brought to his mother, who was receiving medical treatment at Mount Sinai Medical Center. Ms. Rivers reportedly told the police that she spent her share on school supplies and Dom Perignon champagne.
The teller, Monique Gray, also pleaded guilty to grand larceny after the police determined that she and Ms. Rivers developed the plan together.
Manhattan Family Court Judge Sara P. Schechter found that Ms. Rivers had neglected Rashard, but declined to enter a finding of abuse. The judge said "the risk of physical injury was too attenuated."
New York City's Administration for Children's Services appealed.
Although a finding of abuse could serve as evidence in a parental rights termination proceeding, the city sought a reversal primarily to set a precedent, according to Assistant Corporation Counsel Marta Ross, who represented Children's Services in its appeal.
Ruling's Impact
"The bigger picture for us is the future impact this case has on situations in which a parent sends a child to commit a crime," Ms. Ross said.
While the city does not track the frequency of cases in which a parent directs or instructs a child to commit a crime, Ms. Ross said that Children's Services sees "a significant number." The typical case, she said, involves a parent requiring a child either to transport drugs or to steal.
"We're always encountering situations in which parents use their children as mules," said Ms. Ross.
If no other allegations of abuse arise, Rashard D. may have no ramifications for its parties, she said. The appeal was not spurred by reports of ongoing abuse; Rashard currently lives with his grandmother. The Appellate Division ruling does however set the precedent the city sought.
The decision relied on Family Court Act §1012(e)(ii)'s definition of an "abused child" as one whose parent "creates or allows to be created a substantial risk of physical injury . . . likely to cause death or serious or protracted disfigurement, or protracted impairment of physical and emotional health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ."
Such a finding must be based on a preponderance of the evidence.
As evidence of such "substantial risk," Children's Services offered a detective's testimony regarding standard protocol for bank robberies.
"The testimony at the hearing established that the police protocol was to secure the bank and to protect the safety of the police by whatever means necessary," the panel wrote. "Indeed, the detective testified that to secure the bank and to protect lives, good and accepted police procedure in this case would be to enter with guns drawn or at the ready."
That Rashard was not shot, the panel noted, did not lessen the severity of the danger created by Ms. Rivers.
"He was lucky," the panel wrote.
The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's ruling, and remanded the case for an entry of a finding of abuse.
Cynthia Yahia of the Legal Aid Society, who represents Rashard, said the decision did not surprise her.
"I suspected that the panel had made up their mind before hearing arguments," she said.
* * *
Robber boy's ma nailed for abuse
By Helen Peterson
Daily News
Thursday, February 10, 2005
A Harlem woman who forced her 12-year-old son to rob a Manhattan bank is out of prison, but not out of trouble.
A state appeals court has concluded that Tamara Rivers, 35, abused her son by sending him into an East Village bank in 2003 with a note that read: "Give me $30,000 or I will shoot!"
The five-judge panel reversed a Family Court judge's finding of neglect, saying the more serious abuse charge was appropriate since Rivers put her son into a dangerous situation.
City attorney Marta Ross hailed the decision as a victory.
"We felt that in this case the child was put into such a dangerous situation that it was lucky he didn't get hurt," Ross said.
The boy currently lives with his grandmother, and his mother has visitation rights. Ross said the latest decision would help the city terminate Rivers' visitation rights if she does anything in the future to jeopardize the child's well-being.
Rivers, who was in cahoots with a bank teller, served four months in prison in exchange for pleading guilty to child endangerment and grand larceny.
At the time, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly called the plea bargain "absurd," arguing it sends the wrong message to would-be bank robbers.
* * *
BANK-ROB KID WAS FORCED BY ABUSE: COURT
BY Dareh Gregorian
The New York Post
Thursday, February 10, 2005
A Harlem woman abused her 12-year-old son when she forced him to rob a bank, an appeals court has found.
Tamara Rivers, 35, pleaded guilty to getting her son to rob an East Village Citibank in 2003. A Family Court judge issued a finding of "neglect" against the mom last year, but didn't issue a more severe finding of "abuse" because there was only a slim chance of injury.
In a ruling made public yesterday, the state Appellate Division strongly disagreed.
"The child was directed by respondent to rob a bank. Respondent told her son to write a demand note stating, 'Give me $30,000 or I will shoot you!' " the decision notes.
The mother "created a substantial risk" of her child's death, it says. Rivers served four months in jail.
* * *
Robbery ruled abuse
Appellate court says mom abused son, 12, when she forced him to rob a Manhattan bank
By Sam Maull
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Thursday, February 10, 2005
*This story also ran in today's Newsday
A mother abused her 12-year-old son by making him rob a Manhattan bank, a state appeals court said yesterday, reversing a lower court ruling.
The Appellate Division of State Supreme Court overturned a Family Court decision that found Tamara Rivers' orders to her son constituted "neglect" but not "abuse" because the lower court judge believed the risk of physical injury to the boy was remote.
The appellate panel said Rivers could have gotten her son killed. The judges noted that a detective testified at a hearing that police entering the bank would have tried to protect civilians and themselves "by whatever means necessary."
Police procedure, the detective explained, would have been to enter with guns drawn or at the ready, the appeals panel wrote in a 5-0 decision.
"The fact that the child was not shot, or that the situation unfolded in such a way as to reduce the likelihood of gunfire, does not lessen the severity of the danger the child faced due to his mother's actions," the judges wrote. "He was lucky."
The Family Court decision that Rivers' actions constituted neglect had been appealed by the city's Administration for Children's Services, which considered that finding insufficient.
"We felt very strongly that the facts in this case warranted a finding of abuse, not just neglect," said Marta Ross, appellate attorney from the city's law department.
A child doesn't necessarily have to have a physical injury to be abused, she said.
Ross said the stronger finding would have "a significant impact on future cases in which parents use their children to commit crimes, such as in drug cases."
On Aug. 28, 2003, Rivers, of Washington Heights, then 34, sent her son into a Citibank on Avenue A in lower Manhattan to rob teller Monique Gray.
Rivers, the appellate judges wrote, had told the boy to write a note saying: "Give me $30,000 or I will shoot you!!!" Gray, then 19, was in on the robbery with Rivers, police said after the women were arrested. The boy was not charged.
Rivers pleaded guilty to grand larceny and endangering the welfare of a child and was sentenced to 4 months in jail. Gray pleaded guilty to grand larceny and was sentenced to 5 years' probation.
The boy now lives with his grandmother, and his mother has visitation rights.
Rivers' lawyer, Koa Pin Lew, did not return calls.
An appellate court has reversed a Manhattan Family Court’s denial of an abuse finding in a situation where a mother sent her child to rob a bank. The case involved a mother, Tamara Rivers, who in 2003 directed her then 12-year-old son to enter a Manhattan Citibank branch, present a demand note and steal $30,000. A subsequent investigation found that the mother and teller had conspired. The youth was then removed from the mother's care. In its original ruling, the Family Court had found that the mother only neglected her son, but the Appellate Court's ruling now establishes a finding of abuse. This ruling is particularly important, because it could impact future cases where a parent uses his or her child in furtherance of criminal activity (i.e. in drug cases). Marta Ross in Appeals handled the case, with assistance from Paralegal Tiffany Abreu. Abbe Kalnick of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) handled the case at the trial level, and Laurie Smith in our Family Court Division handled some proceedings on a related legal issue. Most major press picked up the story today, and the Daily News is also planning an editorial for this weekend.
MEDIA COVERAGE:
Ordering a Child to Rob a Bank Is Abuse, Appeals Court Rules
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
The New York Times
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Is it child abuse to order your 12-year-old son to rob a bank? A Family Court judge did not think so, but an appeals court has ruled that indeed it is, handing a victory to city lawyers who hope to apply the ruling to other cases in which parents involve their children in crimes.
The ruling on Tuesday by the Appellate Division First Department, while legally significant, did not change the status of the mother, Tamara Rivers, who served four months in jail for the 2003 robbery. She is now allowed to visit her son, who is living with a grandmother.
The Appellate Division found that a child need not be physically harmed to be considered abused. A child abuse finding can lead to a loss of parental rights.
"We do get a significant number of cases in which parents use their children as mules to further their own criminal behavior," said Marta Ross, a lawyer with the city's Law Department. The ruling provides the city with more of a basis to wrest parental rights from mothers and fathers with a pattern of abuse, she said.
On Aug. 28, 2003, the boy in question took a taxi to a Citibank branch on Avenue A in Manhattan and handed a teller a note he had written that read: "Give me $30,000 or I will shoot you," according to the ruling.
The teller, who was also charged in the robbery, handed the money to the boy, who put it in his pockets, the ruling said. He got back into the cab, and delivered the cash to his mother.
Ms. Rivers pleaded guilty to grand larceny and endangering the welfare of a child. A Family Court judge charged her separately with neglect, a charge that is ordinarily applied when a mother allows her child to skip school frequently.
The Family Court judge found that "the risk of physical injury was too attenuated," but lawyers for the city appealed the finding.
In the decision on Tuesday, a five-judge appeals panel ruled that Ms. Rivers "created a substantial risk of injury" that could have resulted in her son's death and that the fact that the boy was not injured did not mean he was not abused.
"He was lucky," the justices wrote. "The fact that the child was not shot does not lessen the severity of the danger the child faced due to his mother's actions."
* * *
Panel Finds 'Abuse' In Mom's Ordering Of Son to Rob Bank
By Mark Fass
New York Law Journal
Thursday, February 10, 2005
A woman who directed her 12-year-old son to rob an East Village bank is guilty of not only neglect but also abuse, the Appellate Division, First Department, has ruled.
"A child need not sustain physical injury to support a finding of abuse, 'as long as the evidence demonstrates that the parent sufficiently endangered the child by creating a substantial risk of injury,'" the five-judge panel unanimously held in In re Rashard D., 5150, quoting Matter of Angelique H., 215 AD 2d 318.
"Respondent intentionally put her child in such a situation," the panel added.
Tamara Rivers pleaded guilty in 2003 to grand larceny and child endangerment after instructing her son Rashard to rob a Citibank branch.
"On the day of the robbery, the child arrived by taxi and instructed the driver to wait for him," the panel wrote. Rashard entered the bank and passed a note to the teller that read, "Give me $30,000 or I will shoot!"
Though only 12, Rashard stood 5 feet 5 inches and weighed 175 pounds. Only his SpongeBob SquarePants socks betrayed his true age, witnesses said.
The teller handed over the money, which the boy brought to his mother, who was receiving medical treatment at Mount Sinai Medical Center. Ms. Rivers reportedly told the police that she spent her share on school supplies and Dom Perignon champagne.
The teller, Monique Gray, also pleaded guilty to grand larceny after the police determined that she and Ms. Rivers developed the plan together.
Manhattan Family Court Judge Sara P. Schechter found that Ms. Rivers had neglected Rashard, but declined to enter a finding of abuse. The judge said "the risk of physical injury was too attenuated."
New York City's Administration for Children's Services appealed.
Although a finding of abuse could serve as evidence in a parental rights termination proceeding, the city sought a reversal primarily to set a precedent, according to Assistant Corporation Counsel Marta Ross, who represented Children's Services in its appeal.
Ruling's Impact
"The bigger picture for us is the future impact this case has on situations in which a parent sends a child to commit a crime," Ms. Ross said.
While the city does not track the frequency of cases in which a parent directs or instructs a child to commit a crime, Ms. Ross said that Children's Services sees "a significant number." The typical case, she said, involves a parent requiring a child either to transport drugs or to steal.
"We're always encountering situations in which parents use their children as mules," said Ms. Ross.
If no other allegations of abuse arise, Rashard D. may have no ramifications for its parties, she said. The appeal was not spurred by reports of ongoing abuse; Rashard currently lives with his grandmother. The Appellate Division ruling does however set the precedent the city sought.
The decision relied on Family Court Act §1012(e)(ii)'s definition of an "abused child" as one whose parent "creates or allows to be created a substantial risk of physical injury . . . likely to cause death or serious or protracted disfigurement, or protracted impairment of physical and emotional health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ."
Such a finding must be based on a preponderance of the evidence.
As evidence of such "substantial risk," Children's Services offered a detective's testimony regarding standard protocol for bank robberies.
"The testimony at the hearing established that the police protocol was to secure the bank and to protect the safety of the police by whatever means necessary," the panel wrote. "Indeed, the detective testified that to secure the bank and to protect lives, good and accepted police procedure in this case would be to enter with guns drawn or at the ready."
That Rashard was not shot, the panel noted, did not lessen the severity of the danger created by Ms. Rivers.
"He was lucky," the panel wrote.
The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's ruling, and remanded the case for an entry of a finding of abuse.
Cynthia Yahia of the Legal Aid Society, who represents Rashard, said the decision did not surprise her.
"I suspected that the panel had made up their mind before hearing arguments," she said.
* * *
Robber boy's ma nailed for abuse
By Helen Peterson
Daily News
Thursday, February 10, 2005
A Harlem woman who forced her 12-year-old son to rob a Manhattan bank is out of prison, but not out of trouble.
A state appeals court has concluded that Tamara Rivers, 35, abused her son by sending him into an East Village bank in 2003 with a note that read: "Give me $30,000 or I will shoot!"
The five-judge panel reversed a Family Court judge's finding of neglect, saying the more serious abuse charge was appropriate since Rivers put her son into a dangerous situation.
City attorney Marta Ross hailed the decision as a victory.
"We felt that in this case the child was put into such a dangerous situation that it was lucky he didn't get hurt," Ross said.
The boy currently lives with his grandmother, and his mother has visitation rights. Ross said the latest decision would help the city terminate Rivers' visitation rights if she does anything in the future to jeopardize the child's well-being.
Rivers, who was in cahoots with a bank teller, served four months in prison in exchange for pleading guilty to child endangerment and grand larceny.
At the time, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly called the plea bargain "absurd," arguing it sends the wrong message to would-be bank robbers.
* * *
BANK-ROB KID WAS FORCED BY ABUSE: COURT
BY Dareh Gregorian
The New York Post
Thursday, February 10, 2005
A Harlem woman abused her 12-year-old son when she forced him to rob a bank, an appeals court has found.
Tamara Rivers, 35, pleaded guilty to getting her son to rob an East Village Citibank in 2003. A Family Court judge issued a finding of "neglect" against the mom last year, but didn't issue a more severe finding of "abuse" because there was only a slim chance of injury.
In a ruling made public yesterday, the state Appellate Division strongly disagreed.
"The child was directed by respondent to rob a bank. Respondent told her son to write a demand note stating, 'Give me $30,000 or I will shoot you!' " the decision notes.
The mother "created a substantial risk" of her child's death, it says. Rivers served four months in jail.
* * *
Robbery ruled abuse
Appellate court says mom abused son, 12, when she forced him to rob a Manhattan bank
By Sam Maull
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Thursday, February 10, 2005
*This story also ran in today's Newsday
A mother abused her 12-year-old son by making him rob a Manhattan bank, a state appeals court said yesterday, reversing a lower court ruling.
The Appellate Division of State Supreme Court overturned a Family Court decision that found Tamara Rivers' orders to her son constituted "neglect" but not "abuse" because the lower court judge believed the risk of physical injury to the boy was remote.
The appellate panel said Rivers could have gotten her son killed. The judges noted that a detective testified at a hearing that police entering the bank would have tried to protect civilians and themselves "by whatever means necessary."
Police procedure, the detective explained, would have been to enter with guns drawn or at the ready, the appeals panel wrote in a 5-0 decision.
"The fact that the child was not shot, or that the situation unfolded in such a way as to reduce the likelihood of gunfire, does not lessen the severity of the danger the child faced due to his mother's actions," the judges wrote. "He was lucky."
The Family Court decision that Rivers' actions constituted neglect had been appealed by the city's Administration for Children's Services, which considered that finding insufficient.
"We felt very strongly that the facts in this case warranted a finding of abuse, not just neglect," said Marta Ross, appellate attorney from the city's law department.
A child doesn't necessarily have to have a physical injury to be abused, she said.
Ross said the stronger finding would have "a significant impact on future cases in which parents use their children to commit crimes, such as in drug cases."
On Aug. 28, 2003, Rivers, of Washington Heights, then 34, sent her son into a Citibank on Avenue A in lower Manhattan to rob teller Monique Gray.
Rivers, the appellate judges wrote, had told the boy to write a note saying: "Give me $30,000 or I will shoot you!!!" Gray, then 19, was in on the robbery with Rivers, police said after the women were arrested. The boy was not charged.
Rivers pleaded guilty to grand larceny and endangering the welfare of a child and was sentenced to 4 months in jail. Gray pleaded guilty to grand larceny and was sentenced to 5 years' probation.
The boy now lives with his grandmother, and his mother has visitation rights.
Rivers' lawyer, Koa Pin Lew, did not return calls.