Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: JOSEPH BENJAMIN P., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Allen P., Respondent–Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa–Litner, J.), entered on or about May 1, 2009, which, upon a factual determination dated February 18, 2009 finding that respondent father neglected the subject child, placed the child in the custody of the Commissioner for Social Services until the completion of the next permanency hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Although the Court has been informed that a subsequent order of the Family Court, entered on or about January 19, 2010, vacated the order of disposition and released the child to the mother and father with ACS supervision and subject to conditions, such vacatur does not render the instant appeal academic, as the adjudication of neglect stands as a permanent stigma that may impact respondent's standing in future proceedings (see Matter of Joshua Hezekiah B., 77 A.D.3d 441, 442, 908 N.Y.S.2d 675 [2010], lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 716, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 91354, 2010 WL 5157321 [2010] )
A preponderance of the evidence clearly showed respondent to have neglected the child because he should have known of the mother's substance abuse and failed to protect the child (see e.g. Matter of Albert G., Jr., 67 A.D.3d 608, 888 N.Y.S.2d 408 [2009] ). The fact that respondent father elected to turn a blind eye, or failed to inquire more fully into whatever suspicions he may have had, is no defense to the charge of neglect (see Matter of Miyani M., 4 A.D.3d 430, 771 N.Y.S.2d 354 [2004] ).
We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 01, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)