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: KHALIF M. and Another, Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Malik M., Respondent–Appellant, v. Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Ronna H. Gordon–Galchus, J.), entered on or about December 16, 2021, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, bringing up for review a fact-finding order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 1, 2021, which found that respondent father neglected the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from fact-finding order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.
The finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[f][i][B]; 1046[b][i]). The evidence shows that the children's emotional and mental conditions were impaired or in imminent danger of being impaired by their exposure to repeated acts of domestic violence committed by the father against the mother (see Matter of Athena M. [Manuel M.T.], 190 AD3d 644, 644–645 [1st Dept 2021]. Impairment or imminent danger of impairment may be inferred by the fact that the incidents occurred either in the presence of or in close proximity to the children (Matter of Tyjaa E. [Kareem McC.], 157 AD3d 420, 420 [1st Dept 2018]; Matter of Andru G. [Jasmine C.], 156 AD3d 456, 457 [1st Dept 2017]), and that the children were aware of and emotionally impacted by the violence, as demonstrated by their crying during one of the incidents (see Matter of Jermaine K.R. [Jermaine R.], 176 AD3d 648, 649 [1st Dept 2019]). Furthermore, the court properly credited the mother's testimony in making its findings, and there is no basis to disturb the court's credibility determinations (see Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776, 778 [1975]; Matter of Madison H. [Demezz H.—Tabitha A.], 99 AD3d 475, 476 [1st Dept 2012]).
We have considered the father's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
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: 72-, 72A
Decided: April 20, 2023
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)