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: M. J., and Others, Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., D. T., Respondent–Appellant, v. Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Jonathan H. Shim, J.), entered on or about June 28, 2021, which inter alia determined, after a fact-finding hearing, that respondent father neglected the subject children Q.T., and J.T. and derivatively neglected the subject children R.J., M.J., and P.T., unanimously affirmed, without costs.
A preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court's finding that respondent neglected the subject children Q.T, and J.T by committing an act of domestic violence against their mother in the children's presence. The record established that respondent, in violation of an order of protection, forced his way into the mother's apartment, pushed one of the children to the ground, choked the mother, brandished a knife and threatened to kill everyone. This incident evinces a strongly impaired parental judgment, and the children were exposed to a substantial risk of harm, sufficient to sustain a finding of neglect (see Matter of Jermaine K.R. [Jermaine R.], 176 AD3d 648, 649 [1st Dept 2019]; Matter of J.R.M.-C. [Antonio M.], 176 AD3d 623 [1st Dept 2019]).
The child's out-of-court statements regarding the details of the incident and the injuries respondent inflicted upon the mother were corroborated by the caseworker's testimony and the criminal complaint (see Matter of Carmine G. [Franklin G.], 115 AD3d 594, 594 [1st Dept 2014]).
The evidence supported the finding of derivative neglect on behalf of M.J, R.J, and P.T. because respondent's actions demonstrated such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm to any child in his care (see Matter of Justin E. [Jose N.-R.], 172 AD3d 613, 614 [1st Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 911 [2019]).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 16743
Decided: November 29, 2022
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)