Right to counsel
In re Jamie TT, the court stated:
[T]he Due Process Clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions . . . mandate that there be some form of legal representation of Jamie’s interests in the proceedings on the petition. . . . Her constitutional and statutory rights to be represented by counsel were not satisfied merely by the State’s supplying a lawyer’s physical presence in the courtroom.
599 N.Y.S.2d 892, 894-95 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). In this case, the child-subject of an abuse proceeding was represented by an attorney during the proceeding, but her attorney did not cross-examine respondent and failed to challenge or offer any evidence to support the child’s allegations of abuse. I The Court found that the child’s rights at stake during the proceedings—which could have restored primary custody to her alleged abuser—were too great to allow her attorney to stand mute.
