Requires a parent or other person legally responsible for a minor and the law guardian appointed pursuant to law to be present during questioning by a peace or police officer.
Summary
A01955 amends the Family Court Act to change the notification requirements when a child is taken into custody by a peace or police officer or delivered to an officer under existing juvenile custody procedures. Under the bill, the officer must immediately notify the child’s parent or other person legally responsible for the child’s care, or if that person is unavailable, the person with whom the child resides. The bill also requires notification of the child’s attorney, if one has been appointed for any pending or prior court proceeding.
The bill’s caption indicates a broader policy goal: requiring a parent or other legally responsible adult and the child’s law guardian to be present during questioning by police. As drafted, the text primarily strengthens notice to caregivers and counsel at the point of custody, which is intended to increase adult and legal oversight when minors are questioned by law enforcement. The measure would take effect 90 days after becoming law.
Impact
The bill would amend section 305.2 of the Family Court Act, which governs procedures when a minor is taken into custody or delivered to police under juvenile justice provisions. It would expand the list of people officers must promptly notify to include the child’s attorney, if known, in addition to a parent, guardian, or other responsible caregiver. This would affect police and peace officers handling juvenile custody situations, as well as parents, guardians, and attorneys representing minors in Family Court matters.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or recorded vote is available, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to gauge legislative sentiment. Based on the bill’s subject matter and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a child-protection and due-process safeguard for minors during police encounters, suggesting a generally protective policy intent.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the balance between juvenile protections and law-enforcement flexibility. Supporters are likely to favor the added parental and legal-notice requirements as safeguards against coercive questioning and to ensure minors have adult and legal support. Opponents, if any, may argue that the bill could slow investigations or complicate police procedures when officers need to question a minor quickly. Because there are no transcripts or votes, specific sponsors, opponents, or negotiated compromises are not documented in the provided materials.