A New York appellate court ruled that child welfare agencies lack the authority to surveil a parent just because their child's other parent was charged with abuse or neglect, banning a statewide practice that lasted for decades, an attorney told Law360 on Thursday.

The ruling came in a case involving a Brooklyn mother who was subjected to intrusive visits by the city's Administration for Children Services after her ex-boyfriend was charged for slapping her and pulling out her hair in front of their daughter.

David Shalleck-Klein, a lawyer representing the mother, who is identified in the decision as Sharneka W., said the decision by the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Second Department bans a widespread practice that allowed social workers to enter and search homes, even after an abusive partner is no longer in the household.

Courts have required "nonrespondent" parents to give child welfare agents unlimited access to their home as a condition to keep custody of their children.

During those visits, which could come unannounced and at any time of the day, child welfare agents intrude into the lives of parents who have not been accused of any wrongdoing, rummaging through their possession and sometimes strip-searching their children — a practice that inflicts trauma while failing to make children safer, Shalleck-Klein said.

"It's a landmark decision," he told Law360. "It fundamentally transforms the practice across the state and will lead to thousands of fewer families subjected to unnecessary, traumatic and illegal surveillance."

In the opinion, a four-justice panel said that state law does not authorize Family Court to subject nonrespondent custodial parents to supervision, noting that the practice has affected disproportionately more families of color.

"The Family Court improperly placed the mother under the supervision of ACS and the court," the decision says. "Considering the intrusive and potentially traumatic impact of ACS involvement in a family's life, the disproportionate involvement of Black and Hispanic children in the child welfare system cannot be ignored."

Shalleck-Klein said ACS investigations create "constant fear" for parents who have done nothing wrong, but also for their children, who experience embarrassment and humiliation during those visits.

"They don't invite their friends over to their apartment because they're terrified that their friends will see ACS workers there," he said. These are enormous intrusions that have been backed by court orders into these families' lives who are supposed to be, and are recovering from the trauma that they experienced by the neglect or abuse by the other parent."

Shalleck-Klein also noted by not complying with ACS terms of supervision, nonrespondent parents can be criminally charged.

After Sharneka W. told her therapist about being physically and verbally abused by her ex-boyfriend in front of their then-1-year-old daughter, Sapphire W., ACS charged the man with neglect, asking the court for a protection order against him, but also to put Sharneka W. under supervision.

Despite opposition by Sharneka W.'s lawyer and the one representing her daughter, and while conceding she was "not accused of anything," the court approved ACS's request in full.

Represented by attorneys from Family Justice Law Center and the NYU Law Family Defense Clinic, Sharneka W. appealed the decision. Law firm Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP joined as appellate counsel to FJLC in a brief filed as part of the appeal. The Legal Aid Society, meanwhile, represented the child.

"As a survivor of domestic violence, I thought I would be supported and heard. Instead, the family court subjected me and my baby to months of traumatic ACS surveillance," Sharneka W. said in a statement released after the decision came down. "I'm so glad that other families won't have to go through what my family did."

Chris Gottlieb, director of the NYU Law Family Defense Clinic, called Sharneka W. "a hero" in a statement.

"For too long, children's services has violated families' rights in the name of protecting children when its illegal surveillance and home intrusions are actually quite harmful to the children the city is supposed to serve," Gottlieb said. "In addition to protecting her own child, Ms. W.'s willingness to take on the system will ensure other families don't need to go through what she and her daughter did."

Attorneys for the mother hailed the decision as a major victory for survivors of domestic violence, saying government surveillance subjected them to "double abuse."

"This illegal practice ends today," the statement says. "Today's transformative ruling will free thousands of parents like her from unnecessary and harmful government surveillance."

Joyce McMillan, executive director of JMACForFamilies, said families affected by ACS supervision have argued for years that supervision of nonrespondent parents is illegal.

"I'm so glad the appellate court agrees," McMillan said.

--Editing by Jay Jackson Jr.