You are here: / / Derivative Neglect Finding Reversed—Operative Principles Explain...

Derivative Neglect Finding Reversed—Operative Principles Explained

The Third Department reversed Family Court, finding the evidence insufficient to support an allegation of derivative neglect. The theory below was that the alleged abuse of one child, Dominick, was serious enough to warrant a finding of derivative neglect with respect to a child (Brad) who had not been born at the time of the alleged neglect of Dominick.  In the course of the decision, the court explained the operative principles:

Pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1046 (a) (i), “proof of the abuse or neglect of one child shall be admissible evidence on the issue of the abuse or neglect of any other child of . . . the respondent.” However, “[e]vidence of neglect of one child typically may not serve as the sole basis for a finding of neglect [of another child, unless] the nature of the direct [neglect], notably its duration [and] the circumstances surrounding its commission[,] . . . evidence[s] fundamental flaws in the respondent’s understanding of the duties of parenthood” … . — flaws that are “so profound as to place any child in his or her care at substantial risk of harm” … . Contrary to the father’s assertion, petitioner’s failure to commence a direct neglect proceeding against him with respect to Dominick does not bar petitioner from maintaining this derivative neglect proceeding against him with respect to Brad. Similarly, the fact that Brad had yet to even be conceived — much less born — at the time of the home invasion or the search of the father’s residence is not dispositive, as the relevant inquiry is whether the evidence of the direct neglect of one child, i.e., Dominick, “is so proximate in time to the derivative proceeding that it can reasonably be concluded that the condition still exists” … . Matter of Brad I (Tiana K), 2014 NY Slip Op 03555, 3rd Dept 5-15-14

 

You might also like
PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER SLIPPED ON WATER FROM A LEAKING WATER COOLER, THE HEARING OFFICER RULED THE INCIDENT WAS NOT A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT BECAUSE THE WATER WAS READILY OBSERVABLE, THE COURT OF APPEALS RECENTLY HELD A PETITIONER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE A CONDITION WAS NOT READILY OBSERVABLE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).
HERE THE “PRIMARY JURISDICTION DOCTRINE” DID NOT APPLY TO REQUIRE A STAY TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (PSC) TO DETERMINE WHETHER “STRAY VOLTAGE” WAS CAUSING INJURY TO PLAINTIFF’S CATTLE AND, IF SO, HOW BEST TO MITIGATE OR REMEDIATE; THE PSC HAS NO SPECIAL EXPERTISE REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF STRAY VOLTAGE ON CATTLE; THE ISSUES ARE BEST HANDLED BY A COURT, DESPITE THE COMPETING EXPERT OPINIONS (THIRD DEPT).
Parole Board Could Require No-Contact-with-Wife for One Year as a Condition
DATE OF LOSS DEEMED TO BE DATE THE CLAIM FOR A STOLEN CAR WAS DENIED, NOT THE DATE THE CAR WAS STOLEN (THIRD DEPT).
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE BOARD’S FINDING THAT CLAIMANT’S SHOULDER INJURY WAS AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE, AS OPPOSED TO AN ACCIDENTAL INJURY (THIRD DEPT).
Defendant Who Pled to All Charges Without a Plea Bargain Could Not Be Required to Waive Appeal
CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A RESIDENTIAL NEWSPAPER DELIVERY SERVICE AND WAS ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
THE VALIDITY OF THE WILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED AT THE STAGE WHEN THE PETITION FOR PROBATE WAS PRESENTED FOR FILING (THIRD DEPT).

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

Purchaser of a Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage or Disposal Facility Was Not... Ambiguous Terms Interpreted to Give Meaning to All Terms—Here Water Damage...