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: L. (Anonymous), ARIANNA. Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Anuvis V. (Anonymous), appellant.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Lim, J.), dated November 5, 2007, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated March 22, 2007, made after a hearing, finding that she had abused and medically neglected the subject child, placed the child with the Administration of Children's Services. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated March 22, 2007.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's determination pursuant to Family Court Act § 1012(e)(i) that she abused her daughter, Arianna, is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct. Act § 1046[a][ii], [b][i]; Matter of Philip M., 82 N.Y.2d 238, 604 N.Y.S.2d 40, 624 N.E.2d 168; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 N.Y.2d 1, 494 N.Y.S.2d 686, 484 N.E.2d 1038).
The child sustained first and second degree burns to her ears, nipples, left underarm, and abdomen. The petitioner's medical expert, Dr. Heon, testified that the child's injuries were intentionally inflicted and were inflicted by the direct application of a thermal object. “[O]nce a petitioner in a child abuse case has established a prima facie case, the burden of going forward shifts to respondents to rebut the evidence of parental culpability” (Matter of Philip M., 82 N.Y.2d 238, 244, 604 N.Y.S.2d 40, 624 N.E.2d 168). Here, the mother failed to provide a reasonable and adequate explanation for the injuries. The Family Court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Cassandra C., 300 A.D.2d 303, 304, 750 N.Y.S.2d 322; Matter of H. Children, 276 A.D.2d 485, 714 N.Y.S.2d 96; Matter of Carine T., 183 A.D.2d 902, 585 N.Y.S.2d 54).
Further, the court correctly found pursuant to Family Court Act § 1012(f)(i)(A) that the mother medically neglected the child when she failed to seek prompt medical attention after observing the injuries (see Matter of C. Children, 207 A.D.2d 888, 616 N.Y.S.2d 644).
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: October 14, 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)