## Facts

- After Leif Z.’s parents divorced, Leif lived with his mother and visited his father regularly.
- The father remarried, and the stepmother made clear Leif was not welcome in the home, even for short visits, despite no provocation by Leif.
- The stepmother told Leif she had no love for him.
- When Leif’s mother became seriously ill and could no longer care for him, Leif was sent to live with his father and stepmother around Columbus Day weekend in 1979.
- Leif was given a curfew, which he observed; the record did not show a pattern of runaway behavior, school truancy, or habitual disobedience.
- The stepmother repeatedly treated Leif harshly, including mocking his guitar playing and singing.
- In one argument, the stepmother—who weighed about twice as much as Leif—jumped on his back and knocked him down.
- The stepmother also made an expletive-laden demand that the father get Leif out of the house and told him he had to choose between her and his son.
- On June 16, 1980, during a dispute at home, the stepmother called Leif’s deceased mother a “whore.”
- Leif began crying and picked up a kitchen knife, but he made no gesture or movement toward the stepmother and willingly handed the knife to his father.
- Police responded; Leif explained he was upset by the slur about his mother, and the stepmother repeated the insult in the officers’ presence.
- The father filed a petition seeking to have Leif adjudicated a person in need of supervision (PINS), alleging Leif threatened the stepmother with a knife and refused to obey her reasonable orders.
- At the end of the PINS fact-finding hearing, Leif’s Law Guardian moved under Family Court Act (FCA) § 716(b) to substitute a neglect proceeding for the PINS petition, arguing the proof showed neglect by the adults rather than incorrigibility by the child.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence proved that Leif was a “person in need of supervision” under FCA § 712(a) as incorrigible, ungovernable, or habitually disobedient and beyond lawful parental control.
2. Whether, under FCA § 716(b), the Family Court could substitute a neglect proceeding for the PINS petition based on the proof developed at the PINS fact-finding hearing.
3. Whether the proof supported proceeding under Article 10 (neglect) rather than adjudicating Leif a PINS.

## Decision

- The court concluded the proof did not establish that Leif was incorrigible, ungovernable, or habitually disobedient within the meaning of the PINS statute.
- The knife incident was treated as a single, emotionally charged reaction to a gross insult in the context of ongoing mistreatment, not evidence that Leif was beyond parental control.
- The court granted the Law Guardian’s motion under FCA § 716(b) to substitute a neglect proceeding for the pending PINS petition.
- The court directed that further proceedings continue under Article 10 against the responsible adult(s), rather than proceed toward a PINS adjudication against Leif.

## Legal Principles

- A PINS adjudication under FCA § 712(a) requires proof that the child is incorrigible, ungovernable, or habitually disobedient and beyond lawful parental control; an isolated incident, without a pattern of such behavior, is generally insufficient.
- Family Court may look past the label placed on a petition and evaluate what the proof actually shows about the source of the family conflict.
- FCA § 716(b) authorizes the court, on motion of the Law Guardian (or on its own motion), to substitute another type of petition when the proof at fact-finding shows that different statutory relief is the proper fit.
- Article 10 neglect proceedings are designed to address harm (or risk of harm) to a child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition caused by a caregiver’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of care, including failing to protect a child from mistreatment by a household member.
- When a child’s problematic behavior is a response to adult misconduct in the home, court intervention should be aimed at protecting the child and addressing caregiver conduct rather than treating the child as the primary wrongdoer.

## Conclusion

In *In the Matter of Leif Z.*, the Family Court declined to treat Leif as a PINS based on a single knife incident that occurred after sustained hostility and cruel conduct by his stepmother, including a degrading slur about his deceased mother. Using FCA § 716(b), the court allowed the case to be reshaped into an Article 10 neglect matter because the proof pointed to adult maltreatment and a failure to protect, not a child who was beyond parental control.


In the Matter of Leif Z., 431 N.Y.S.2d 290 (1980)