You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE CHILD HAD NOT BEEN HARMED, MOTHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS JUSTIFIED...

ALTHOUGH THE CHILD HAD NOT BEEN HARMED, MOTHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS JUSTIFIED THE NEGLECT FINDING.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined Family Court properly found mother had neglected her child. The child was not harmed by the mother. There was evidence the mother suffered from delusions:

A neglected child is one whose “physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of his parent . . . to exercise a minimum degree of care” … . It is well settled that “[a] respondent’s mental condition may form the basis of a finding of neglect if it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her condition resulted in imminent danger to the child[]” … .

In this case, the mother presented a risk of harm to her child through her unfounded fears that her daughter had been raped, since these fears resulted in the mother on different occasions “testing” the child to see if she was raped, by checking her diaper and by sticking a Q-tip inside her, and making an unnecessary trip to the hospital … .

Further, the mother displayed a “lack of insight” into her illness by refusing to agree that she had any mental health condition, despite her diagnoses, and by repeatedly refusing to comply with her medication regimen … .

Significantly, lack of evidence as to actual injury to the child is inconsequential. “A showing that [the child was] impaired by [the mother’s] failure to exercise a minimum degree of care is not required for an adjudication of neglect; it is sufficient that [the child was] in imminent danger of becoming impaired'” … .Indeed, the imminent danger standard exists specifically to protect children who have not yet been harmed and to prevent impairment … .

With regard to mental illness, we have previously found that a parent suffering from untreated paranoid delusions presents an imminent risk of harm to children who are placed in her care … . * * *

The neglect finding was not based only on the mother’s mental illness. Rather, it was based on her mental condition in conjunction with her failure to comply with her medication regimen and follow-up treatment, and the fact that her mental illness impaired her ability to care for her infant daughter, and caused her to keep unnecessarily checking her daughter for evidence of rape. Matter of Ruth Joanna O.O. (Melissa O.), 2017 NY Slip Op 01524, 1st Dept 2-28-17

 

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT, ALTHOUGH THE CHILD HAD NOT BEEN HARMED, MOTHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS JUSTIFIED THE NEGLECT FINDING)/NEGLECT (NEGLECT, ALTHOUGH THE CHILD HAD NOT BEEN HARMED, MOTHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS JUSTIFIED THE NEGLECT FINDING)/MENTAL ILLNESS (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT, ALTHOUGH THE CHILD HAD NOT BEEN HARMED, MOTHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS JUSTIFIED THE NEGLECT FINDING)

You might also like
Questions of Fact Raised Whether Plaintiff’s Infant-Daughter’s Physical and Mental Deficiencies Were Caused by Inadequate Medical Treatment Prior to and During Birth, Despite Indications Plaintiff’s Daughter Was Born Healthy
IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, NO APPEAL LIES FROM A JUDGE’S DECLINING TO SIGN AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; THE ONLY REMEDY IS A MOTION TO VACATE THE FINAL JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON PLAINTIFF’S ACCOUNT STATED CAUSE OF ACTION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFFS NO LONGER NEED TO DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT (FIRST DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF OCCASIONAL MARIJUANA USE DID NOT SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF 15 POINTS IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE EXISTED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT INSURANCE BROKER SUCH THAT THE BROKER COULD BE LIABLE FOR THE FAILURE TO PROCURE ADEQUATE COVERAGE FOR A DEMOLITION PROJECT (FIRST DEPT).
COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION ONLY AVAILABLE TO A PARTY WHO IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE, AS OPPOSED TO LIABLE FOR THE PARTY’S OWN NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SKIER ACTED RECKLESSLY, THEREBY RENDERING THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE CONTRACT ALLOWS REFUSAL... VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION IS A VALID GROUND FOR ISSUANCE...