You are here: / / Criteria for Derivative Neglect Finding Explained (Evidence Insufficie...

Criteria for Derivative Neglect Finding Explained (Evidence Insufficient)

The Second Department, in reversing Family Court’s finding, explained the criteria for a finding of derivative neglect:

…[A] finding of sexual abuse of one child does not, by itself, establish that other children in the household have been derivatively abused or neglected …. The focus of the inquiry to determine whether derivative neglect is present is whether the evidence of abuse or neglect of one child indicates a fundamental defect in the parent’s understanding of the duties of parenthood …. Here, a derivative finding of neglect as to the child Brandon J. was warranted since the abuse was perpetrated while he was in the home…. However, given the limited duration and nature of the sexual abuse, as well as the remoteness in time between when Monica C. M. was abused and when Joshua A., the appellant’s biological son, was born more than four years later, there was insufficient evidence to support the Family Court’s determination that Arnold A. derivatively neglected Joshua A…..  Matter of Monica CM, 2013 NY Slip Op 04808, 2nd Dept 6-26-13

 

You might also like
FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE SURE APPELLANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSEQUENCES OF PROCEEDING WITHOUT COUNSEL IN THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION MATTER, ORDER OF PROTECTION REVERSED.
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED NEGOTIATED STIPULATION SETTLING THE ACTION WITH ONE PLAINTIFF AND PROCEEDING TO TRIAL WITH THE OTHER PLAINTIFF.
Excessive Intervention and Improper Conduct of Judge Required New Trial in Medical Malpractice Case
Hearing Required to Determine If Complaint Properly Served
HERE IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE JUDGE LAID OUT THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT DEMONSTRATING A NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE AND IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THE PLAINTIFF WAS AFFORDED NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO DISMISSAL FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).
THE MAJORITY HELD DEFENDANT, BY APPROACHING A JUROR AT THE JUROR’S HOME DURING DELIBERATIONS, FORFEITED HIS RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY A JURY OF 12; OVER A DEFENSE MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL, DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED BY A JURY OF 11 AND THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED; THERE WAS A STRONG DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE FORMATION OF ICE IN THE PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE ICE WAS A RECURRING CONDITION DEFENDANTS DID NOT NEED TO PRESENT PROOF THAT IT WAS NOT A RECURRING CONDITION, DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Supplemental Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (SUM) Provision Triggered When an Individual Would Be Afforded More Coverage by the Policy with the SUM Provision

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Standing Requirements for Grandparent Seeking Visitation Explained Article 78 Petition in Nature of Prohibition Against Judge and District Attorney...