You are here: / / NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN FATHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS AND ACTUAL OR...

NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN FATHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS AND ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL HARM TO THE CHILD, NEGLECT FINDING VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that a causal connection between father’s mental illness and actual or potential harm to the child (Kyle) had not been demonstrated. The neglect finding was vacated:

While parental neglect may be based on mental illness, proof of a parent’s mental illness alone will not support a finding of neglect … . Rather, the petitioner must adduce evidence sufficient to “establish a causal connection between the parent’s condition, and the actual or potential harm to the [child]”… .

In this case, we agree with the father and the attorney for the children that ACS [Administration for Children’s Services] failed to establish that there was a causal connection between the father’s mental illness and any actual or potential harm to Kyle … . The evidence did not establish that the father’s mental illness, for which he was receiving treatment, precluded him from being able to care for Kyle, or placed Kyle’s physical, mental, or emotional condition in imminent danger of becoming impaired … . Matter of Geoffrey D. (Everton D.), 2018 NY Slip Op 01185, Second Dept 2-21-18

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT, MENTAL ILLNESS, NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN FATHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS AND ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL HARM TO THE CHILD, NEGLECT FINDING VACATED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, MENTAL ILLNESS, NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN FATHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS AND ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL HARM TO THE CHILD, NEGLECT FINDING VACATED (SECOND DEPT))/MENTAL ILLNESS (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT, NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN FATHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS AND ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL HARM TO THE CHILD, NEGLECT FINDING VACATED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT TERMINATION OF FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS (SECOND DEPT).
Bar Patron Was Beaten to Death by Other Patrons—Defendants (Bar and Premises Owners) Were Unable to Demonstrate the Attack Was Not Foreseeable and their Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Attack—Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion Properly Denied
A NOTICE OF VIOLATION FROM THE CITY TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER REGARDING THE DETERIORATED CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT (A PROTRUDING METAL BAR) WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).
HOMEOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, HOMEOWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT CONTROL AND SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S WORK OR DID NOT CREATE OR WAS NOT AWARE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION.
PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AND LIMITS ON PLAINTIFF’S ABILITY TO ENGAGE IN FUTURE VEXATIOUS LITIGATION PROPERLY IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).
LETTER AGREEMENT REGARDING A LEASE WAS NOT AN ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT; RATHER IT WAS AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE (SECOND DEPT).
“Due Diligence” Demonstrated—“Nail and Mail” Service Appropriate
DEFENDANT, WHICH INSTALLED CHRISTMAS DISPLAYS AT A MALL, DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF STEMMING FROM ITS CONTRACT WITH THE MALL; SINCE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED ONLY ONE ESPINAL EXCEPTION TO SUPPORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT NEED ONLY ADDRESS THAT ONE EXCEPTION IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

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

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HIS COUNSEL TOLD HIM... PATERNITY PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS...