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: SOMA H. (Anonymous). Commissioner of Administration for Children's Services, Appellant; Mohammad Amir H. (Anonymous), Respondent.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Clark, J.), dated September 3, 2002, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for a dispositional hearing.
A finding of neglect may be predicated upon proof that a child's physical, mental, or emotional condition is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of a parent's mental illness (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f][i]; Matter of Madeline R., 214 A.D.2d 445, 625 N.Y.S.2d 512). No showing of past or present harm to the child is necessary to support a finding of neglect (see Matter of Karyn D., 282 A.D.2d 746, 724 N.Y.S.2d 335; Matter of Octavia S., 255 A.D.2d 316, 679 N.Y.S.2d 415; Matter of Raul B. v. Diane B., 231 A.D.2d 523, 647 N.Y.S.2d 262; Matter of Madeline R., supra ).
Here, the uncontroverted evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing reveals that the father suffers from schizophrenia, a chronic mental disorder which is characterized by delusions. According to the testimony of his psychiatrist, the father hears voices, which sound real to him, urging him to kill people and molest children. The psychiatrist also testified that the father has experienced these auditory hallucinations on a daily basis for many years, and that the hallucinations persisted even while he was taking anti-psychotic medications. In view of the father's mental condition, the psychiatrist believed that he should not be permitted to care for the child except under the direct supervision of another adult. As both the petitioner and law guardian contend, this evidence was sufficient to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the child is neglected within the meaning of Family Court Act § 1012(f)(i) (see Matter of Lewis Y., 293 A.D.2d 684, 740 N.Y.S.2d 633; Matter of Octavia S., supra; Matter of Baby Boy E., 187 A.D.2d 512, 589 N.Y.S.2d 587).
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: June 30, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)