## Facts

- V.C., a deaf woman, filed Family Court petitions seeking orders of protection against her husband (H.C., Sr.) and adult son (H.C., Jr.) after leaving the marital home for safety.
- She requested that respondents be excluded from the shared residence and that she be restored to occupancy.
- The Family Court issued temporary orders directing respondents not to assault, menace, harass, or endanger V.C., and not to exclude her from the residence, but denied immediate exclusion of respondents.
- At a fact-finding hearing, V.C. and family members testified to escalating abuse, including threats with a loaded firearm, prior gun violence, and acts restricting her access to the home.
- The Family Court found harassment, ended fact-finding over V.C.’s objection that she had additional evidence, and obtained admissions of harassment from respondents.
- The dispositional hearing was repeatedly delayed, including due to difficulty obtaining a sign-language interpreter.
- The Family Court ultimately declined to conduct a meaningful dispositional hearing, denied exclusion relief, and issued only a one-year order of protection, reasoning that V.C. had alternative housing and could seek exclusive occupancy in a divorce action.

## Issues

1. After finding a family offense and granting an order of protection, whether the Family Court erred by failing to conduct a proper dispositional hearing and to consider excluding the abusive respondents from the marital home so the victim could return.
2. Whether the Family Court erred by failing to consider an order of protection for up to three years in light of alleged aggravating circumstances, including firearm-related threats and repeated abuse.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court’s disposition and remanded.
- The court held the Family Court erred by not conducting an appropriate dispositional hearing addressing available protective remedies, including exclusion of respondents from the residence.
- The court held the Family Court also erred by failing to consider whether aggravating circumstances warranted an order of protection for up to three years.
- On remand, the Family Court was directed to hold a full dispositional hearing allowing V.C. to present further evidence and to consider both exclusion relief and a longer-duration order.

## Legal Principles

- Family Court Act protective orders must provide effective relief; courts must consider remedies that restore safety and stability, not merely issue minimal restraints.
- After a finding of a family offense, the court must conduct meaningful dispositional proceedings and consider the full range of statutorily authorized protections.
- The court may exclude an abusive family member from a shared residence; a victim’s temporary relocation for safety does not eliminate the need to consider exclusion or justify leaving the home in the abuser’s control.
- The availability of matrimonial-court relief does not permit the Family Court to avoid considering exclusion relief when addressing a family offense petition.
- When aggravating circumstances are shown (including dangerous-instrument use and repeated serious abuse), the court must consider whether an order of protection for up to three years is warranted.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division required Family Court to provide a full dispositional process and to consider both exclusion from the shared home and a longer protective order when the record indicates serious, repeated domestic violence and related aggravating circumstances.


Matter of V.C. v. H.C., 257 A.D.2d 27 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1999)