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: ALICIYA R. (Anonymous). Orange County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent; Luz C. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Christian L. (Anonymous). Orange County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent; Luz C. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 2)
In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), dated August 1, 2007, as, after a nonjury trial, found that she had neglected the subject children.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother neglected the subject children because she knew or should have known that her boyfriend, who was frequently in the children's presence, physically abused the child Aliciya R., and because she failed to prevent further contact between Aliciya R. and the boyfriend once she became or should have become aware of the abuse (see Family Ct. Act § 1012[f][i][B]; Matter of Cantina B., 26 A.D.3d 327, 328, 809 N.Y.S.2d 539; Matter of Kanika M., 270 A.D.2d 490, 704 N.Y.S.2d 669; Matter of Maxwell B., 269 A.D.2d 444, 445, 703 N.Y.S.2d 210; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y. v. Edyth W., 210 A.D.2d 328, 329, 620 N.Y.S.2d 402). Moreover, in light of the mother's failure to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing Aliciya R. with proper supervision or guardianship, the petitioner also proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother derivatively neglected her younger child (see Matter of Jose I., 13 A.D.3d 446, 447, 787 N.Y.S.2d 336; Matter of Amanda RR., 293 A.D.2d 779, 781, 740 N.Y.S.2d 485).
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.
Decided: November 25, 2008
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)