S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                   1071
 
                        2017-2018 Regular Sessions
 
                           I N  A S S E M B L Y
 
                             January 10, 2017
                                ___________
 
 Introduced  by M. of A. SIMON, COLTON, CRESPO, GALEF, GOTTFRIED, MOSLEY,
   ROSENTHAL,  SKARTADOS,  BENEDETTO,  BLAKE,  ORTIZ,  WEPRIN,   LUPARDO,
   SEPULVEDA,  QUART,  JAFFEE,  GOODELL -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A.
   ARROYO, BLANKENBUSH, COOK,  CROUCH,  HEVESI,  LUPINACCI,  MALLIOTAKIS,
   McDONALD,  PRETLOW, SEAWRIGHT, WALTER -- read once and referred to the
   Committee on Judiciary
 
 AN ACT to amend the domestic relations law and the family court act,  in
   relation  to  prohibiting the making of decisions concerning guardian-
   ship, custody or visitation or adoption petitions solely on the  basis
   of  a  parent's, guardian's or custodian's blindness; and to amend the
   social services law, in relation  to  prohibiting  the  department  of
   social  services  from  denying,  deciding  or  opposing a petition or
   request for guardianship, custody or  visitation  solely  because  the
   petitioner  is blind and to prohibiting a local social services agency
   from taking actions solely because a parent, custodian or guardian  is
   blind
 
   THE  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
 BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

   Section 1. This act shall be known and may  be  cited  as  the  "blind
 persons right to parent act".
   § 2. Legislative intent. The legislature finds the following:
   a. All blind Americans have the right to found a family, to freely and
 responsibly  decide  on the number and spacing of their children, and to
 retain the custody of their offspring on an  equal  basis  with  others.
 This  right  to  parent is rooted in the due process clause of the Four-
 teenth Amendment; however, blind people  are  often  stripped  of  these
 constitutional rights when state statutes, judicial decisions, and child
 welfare  practices  are based on the presumption that blindness automat-
 ically means parental incompetence.
   b. The presumption that blindness automatically means parental  incom-
 petence is a misconception. Given the proper tools and education, blind-

  EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                       [ ] is old law to be omitted.
              

                                                            LBD00477-01-7

 A. 1071                             2
 
 ness  can be reduced to a physical nuisance. Because many sighted people
 do not understand the techniques that blind  people  use  to  accomplish
 everyday  tasks,  sighted  judges,  social  workers,  and state official
 assume  that  those  tasks cannot be completed by a blind person.  Using
 alternative techniques, blind people are capable of living  independent,
 productive  lives,  which  include  providing  safe and loving homes for
 their children. For example, blind people put small  tactile  dots  over
 markers  on  stoves,  washing  machines, and other flat surfaces so that
 they can independently operate those devices. Specific to raising  chil-
 dren,  blind  parents may have their young children wear a small bell on
 their shoes so the child's location can be known to the parents.   Blind
 parents  will  also  pull  a  stroller  behind them rather than push the
 stroller in front of them so their long white cane  or  guide  dog  will
 find obstacles or enter an intersection before the child and stroller.
   c.  When  sighted  parents  are involved in a guardianship, custody or
 visitation proceeding, their parental capabilities and how  those  capa-
 bilities  affect the best interest of the child are thoroughly evaluated
 through a careful review of evidence. Too often, however, judges summar-
 ily dismiss a blind parent's capabilities under the  misconception  that
 blind  people are incapable of most anything, despite evidence on record
 proving otherwise. Blind parents  involved  in  these  proceedings  must
 first  overcome any bias or low expectations of the judge, and then also
 provide evidence negating those  misconceptions  above  and  beyond  the
 normal burden placed on sighted parents.
   d.  Widespread  misconceptions  about  blindness often trigger a state
 agency to act, unsolicited, against the wishes of a blind parent. One of
 many countless, devastating reports of discrimination occurred in  2010,
 when  the  state  of Missouri wrongfully deemed a blind couple unable to
 care for their 2-day old daughter, who remained  in  protective  custody
 until  the  family was reunited after a 57-day battle. These parents had
 done nothing to demonstrate parental incompetence other  than  happening
 to have had a child and been blind, and yet the agency solely considered
 their  blindness  and decided to take action. In fact, the Missouri case
 and many others, the parents had voluntarily  contacted  social  service
 officials  themselves  in  order  to  seek  advice and assistance and to
 ensure that all of their child's needs were being met, but instead found
 themselves stripped of custody. Thus, hasty actions on the part of state
 social welfare officials  can  discourage  blind  parents  from  seeking
 services and assistance for which they and their children are eligible.
   e. During custody proceedings in cases of divorce, where one parent is
 blind and the other is sighted, the sighted parent will often try to use
 the  other  parent's blindness as a tool to deny the blind parent custo-
 dial rights. Because custody proceedings related to a divorce are  often
 hostile, the court should demand that each party demonstrate evidence of
 the  other  party's  incompetence. However, courts often assume that the
 sighted party is accurate in portraying the blind parent as incompetent,
 and make custody and visitation decisions based solely on the fact  that
 one  parent is blind. These decisions can range from limiting or denying
 visitation unless a sighted person is present at  all  times  to  simply
 denying  the blind parent all custodial rights. This is not only discri-
 minatory; it denies the blind parent a fair chance at custody and  opens
 courts to manipulation.
   §  3.  The  domestic  relations law is amended by adding a new section
 75-m to read as follows:
   § 75-M. CONSIDERATION OF BLINDNESS  DURING  GUARDIANSHIP,  CUSTODY  OR
 VISITATION  PROCEEDINGS.  1. THE COURT MAY NOT DENY OR DECIDE A PETITION

 A. 1071                             3

 FOR GUARDIANSHIP, CUSTODY OR VISITATION SOLELY ON  THE  BASIS  THAT  THE
 PETITIONER IS BLIND. THE BLINDNESS OF THE PETITIONER SHALL BE CONSIDERED
 RELEVANT  ONLY  TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COURT FINDS, BASED ON EVIDENCE IN
 THE  RECORD,  THAT THE BLINDNESS AFFECTS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD
 WHOSE GUARDIANSHIP, CUSTODY OR VISITATION IS THE SUBJECT  OF  THE  PETI-
 TION.
   2. AS USED IN THIS SECTION, "BLIND" OR "BLINDNESS" MEANS:
   A. VISION THAT IS 20/200 OR LESS IN THE BEST CORRECTED EYE; OR
   B. VISION THAT SUBTENDS AN ANGLE OF NOT GREATER THAN TWENTY DEGREES IN
 THE BEST CORRECTED EYE.
   §  4.  The  domestic  relations law is amended by adding a new section
 111-d to read as follows:
   § 111-D. CONSIDERATION OF BLINDNESS DURING  ADOPTION  PROCEEDINGS.  1.
 THE  COURT  MAY NOT DENY OR DECIDE A PETITION FOR ADOPTION SOLELY ON THE
 BASIS THAT THE PETITIONER IS BLIND.  THE  BLINDNESS  OF  THE  PETITIONER
 SHALL  BE  CONSIDERED  RELEVANT ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COURT FINDS,
 BASED ON EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, THAT THE  BLINDNESS  AFFECTS  THE  BEST
 INTERESTS OF THE CHILD WHOSE ADOPTION IS THE SUBJECT OF THE PETITION.
   2. AS USED IN THIS SECTION, "BLIND" OR "BLINDNESS" MEANS:
   A. VISION THAT IS 20/200 OR LESS IN THE BEST CORRECTED EYE; OR
   B. VISION THAT SUBTENDS AN ANGLE OF NOT GREATER THAN TWENTY DEGREES IN
 THE BEST CORRECTED EYE.
   §  5.  The  family court act is amended by adding a new section 643 to
 read as follows:
   § 643. CONSIDERATION OF BLINDNESS DURING ADOPTION PROCEEDINGS. 1.  THE
 COURT MAY NOT DENY OR DECIDE A PETITION FOR ADOPTION SOLELY ON THE BASIS
 THAT THE PETITIONER IS BLIND. THE BLINDNESS OF THE PETITIONER  SHALL  BE
 CONSIDERED  RELEVANT  ONLY  TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COURT FINDS, BASED ON
 EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, THAT THE BLINDNESS AFFECTS THE BEST INTERESTS OF
 THE CHILD WHOSE ADOPTION IS THE SUBJECT OF THE PETITION.
   2. AS USED IN THIS SECTION, "BLIND" OR "BLINDNESS" MEANS:
   A. VISION THAT IS 20/200 OR LESS IN THE BEST CORRECTED EYE; OR
   B. VISION THAT SUBTENDS AN ANGLE OF NOT GREATER THAN TWENTY DEGREES IN
 THE BEST CORRECTED EYE.
   § 6. The family court act is amended by adding a new  section  658  to
 read as follows:
   §  658.  CONSIDERATION  OF  BLINDNESS  DURING GUARDIANSHIP, CUSTODY OR
 VISITATION PROCEEDINGS. 1. THE COURT MAY NOT DENY OR DECIDE  A  PETITION
 FOR  CUSTODY  OR  VISITATION  UNDER THIS PART OR GUARDIANSHIP UNDER PART
 FOUR OF THIS ARTICLE SOLELY ON THE BASIS THAT THE PETITIONER  IS  BLIND.
 THE BLINDNESS OF THE PETITIONER SHALL BE CONSIDERED RELEVANT ONLY TO THE
 EXTENT  THAT  THE COURT FINDS, BASED ON EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, THAT THE
 BLINDNESS AFFECTS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE  CHILD  WHOSE  GUARDIANSHIP,
 CUSTODY OR VISITATION IS THE SUBJECT OF THE PETITION.
   2. AS USED IN THIS SECTION, "BLIND" OR "BLINDNESS" MEANS:
   A. VISION THAT IS 20/200 OR LESS IN THE BEST CORRECTED EYE; OR
   B. VISION THAT SUBTENDS AN ANGLE OF NOT GREATER THAN TWENTY DEGREES IN
 THE BEST CORRECTED EYE.
   § 7. The social services law is amended by adding a new section 393 to
 read as follows:
   §  393.  CONSIDERATION  OF  BLINDNESS  DURING GUARDIANSHIP, CUSTODY OR
 ADOPTION PROCEEDINGS. 1. THE DEPARTMENT MAY NOT DENY, DECIDE OR OPPOSE A
 PETITION OR REQUEST FOR GUARDIANSHIP, CUSTODY OR VISITATION  UNDER  THIS
 ARTICLE  SOLELY  ON  THE  BASIS THAT THE PETITIONER, PARENT, GUARDIAN OR
 CUSTODIAN IS BLIND. THE BLINDNESS OF THE PETITIONER, PARENT, GUARDIAN OR
 CUSTODIAN SHALL BE CONSIDERED RELEVANT  ONLY  TO  THE  EXTENT  THAT  THE

 A. 1071                             4

 BLINDNESS  AFFECTS  THE  BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD WHOSE GUARDIANSHIP,
 CUSTODY OR VISITATION IS THE SUBJECT OF THE PETITION.
   2.  THE  DEPARTMENT  SHALL NOT SEEK CUSTODY OR GUARDIANSHIP OF A CHILD
 SOLELY BECAUSE THE CHILD'S PARENT, GUARDIAN OR CUSTODIAN IS  BLIND.  THE
 BLINDNESS OF THE PARENT, GUARDIAN OR CUSTODIAN SHALL BE CONSIDERED RELE-
 VANT ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE BLINDNESS AFFECTS THE BEST INTERESTS OF
 THE  CHILD  WHOSE  GUARDIANSHIP, CUSTODY OR VISITATION IS THE SUBJECT OF
 THE PETITION.
   3. AS USED IN THIS SECTION, "BLIND" OR "BLINDNESS" MEANS:
   A. VISION THAT IS 20/200 OR LESS IN THE BEST CORRECTED EYE; OR
   B. VISION THAT SUBTENDS AN ANGLE OF NOT GREATER THAN TWENTY DEGREES IN
 THE BEST CORRECTED EYE.
   § 8. The commissioner of social services is authorized and directed to
 promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the implementation of the
 provisions of this act on or before its effective date.
   § 9. This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day  after  it  shall
 have become a law.