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: Eugene S. (Anonymous), Jr. Westchester County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent; Priscilla E., respondent- appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Dakota S. (Anonymous). Westchester County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent; Priscilla E., respondent- appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 2)
Submitted—January 14, 2014
DECISION & ORDER
Ronna L. DeLoe, New Rochelle, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In two related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (IDV Part) (Capeci, J.), entered August 21, 2012, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, inter alia, found that she neglected the subject children.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“To establish neglect pursuant to section 1012(f)(i)(B) of the Family Court Act, the petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) the child's physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired, or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired, and (2) the actual or threatened harm to the child is due to the failure of the parent or caregiver to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship” (Matter of Kiara C. [David C.], 85 AD3d 1025, 1025–1026; see Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368).
Here, contrary to the mother's contention, a preponderance of the evidence established that she neglected the subject children by, inter alia, engaging in certain acts of domestic violence in the children's presence that impaired, or created an imminent danger of impairing, their physical, mental, or emotional condition (see Matter of Amelia V.M.B., 107 AD3d 980; Matter of Michael G.C., 103 AD3d 890; Matter of Ariella S., 89 AD3d 1092; Matter of Ndeye D. [Benjamin D.], 85 AD3d 1026; Matter of Elijah J. [Phillip J.], 77 AD3d 835; cf. Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357; Matter of Chaim R. [Keturah Ponce R.], 94 AD3d 1127).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.
SKELOS, J.P., DILLON, HALL and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2012–08969 (Docket Nos. N–14456–10, N–14457–10, N–14459–10, N–14460–10)
Decided: February 05, 2014
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)