Appellate court denies injunction in Westchester child care case, voids restraining order

2

The appellate division, second department of New York Supreme Court has denied an injunction that would have stopped an increase in child care costs to parents who participate in Westchester County’s subsidized day care programs and has removed a restraining order that had temporarily halted the increase, said Ned McCormack, a spokesman for County Executive Rob Astorino.

The increase was first scheduled to go into effect June 1 but was postponed after Democratic leaders of the Board of Legislators sued and a Supreme Court judge granted a restraining order. The case was dismissed in August and the legislators appealed. Meanwhile, the Westchester Department of Social Services rescheduled the increase for Nov. 1, notifying the parents of the increase for the second time. The appellate division granted a second restraining order that stopped the Nov. 1 increase.

The increase would take the parent contribution for several thousand families from 20 percent of income above the poverty line to 35 percent. Most families in the programs make less than 200 percent of the poverty line.

McCormack said it is too late in the year for county to recoup the money it had hoped to raise by increasing the parent share. So the share will stay at 20 percent until Jan. 1 when the next county budget kicks in. Astorino has proposed a 35 percent parent share, the maximum allowed by the state, again next year. But the Board of Legislators may try to prevent the increase.

“We’re committed to having the program responsibly funded in 2013,” McCormack said.

There is a restraining order in place in a second child care case challenging the county’s plan to freeze applications to the programs.

Share.

About Author

2 Comments

  1. You mean Astorino would prefer that working moms would be off child care programs and on full welfare when the razor thin difference they are struggling to balance each month, each week, breaks their ability to get to work and they lose their job and land back on welfare?