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: SANJEEDA M. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Karibuli M. (Anonymous), appellant.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from (1) a decision of the Family Court, Kings County (Lim, J.), dated November 24, 2004, (2) a fact-finding order of the same court dated November 24, 2004, which, after a hearing, found that he abused and neglected the subject child, and (3) an order of disposition of the same court dated January 6, 2005, which, inter alia, directed him to stay away from the mother and the subject child except for court ordered visitation.
ORDERED that the appeals from the decision and the fact-finding order are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the decision and the fact-finding order were superseded by the order of disposition; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The father's contention that the Family Court's finding of abuse was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence is without merit. The validating testimony of the child abuse expert, as well as the testimony of a caseworker for the Administration for Children's Services (hereinafter ACS) constituted sufficient corroboration of the child's out-of-court statements to support the determination of the Family Court (see Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 121, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 914; Matter of Christopher L., 19 A.D.3d 597, 797 N.Y.S.2d 535; Matter of Harry S., 237 A.D.2d 613, 655 N.Y.S.2d 1002; Matter of Linda K., 132 A.D.2d 149, 161, 521 N.Y.S.2d 705).
Moreover, ACS proved by a preponderance of the evidence at the fact-finding hearing that the father neglected the subject child by engaging in acts of violence against her mother in the presence of the child, thereby creating an imminent danger that the child's physical, mental, and emotional health would be harmed (see Matter of Carlos M., 293 A.D.2d 617, 619, 741 N.Y.S.2d 82; Matter of Cybill V., 279 A.D.2d 582, 719 N.Y.S.2d 286; Matter of Tami G., 209 A.D.2d 869, 870, 619 N.Y.S.2d 222).
The father's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
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: December 05, 2005
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)