You are here: / / NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST MOTHER AND FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD’S...
,

NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST MOTHER AND FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD’S BRUISES NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the proof did not support a finding that either parent had neglected the child. Apparently mother's boyfriend had spanked the child and bruising appeared over time. Mother had no reason to suspect her boyfriend would mistreat the child and the parents could not be faulted for not recognizing the significance of the bruising:

… [T]here was no evidence that the mother had any prior knowledge of the boyfriend's alleged propensity to mistreat the children, and there was no evidence that he had done so on any prior occasion. In fact, Sophia's medical records did not contain any indication of prior neglect, maltreatment, or abuse of any kind. As the DCFS's  [Dutchess County Department of Community and Family Service's] own expert testified at the hearing, “[Sophia] was a healthy little girl and this seemed to have happened out of the blue.” Under these circumstances, the mother did not neglect the children by leaving them in the boyfriend's care … .

Likewise, the mother's failure to recognize the significance of the pattern of bruising—which the medical expert conceded would not be apparent to a layperson—cannot be faulted. Moreover, the record supports both parents' position that the decision to wait until Tuesday morning to bring Sophia to the hospital was an acceptable course of action in light of all the surrounding circumstances (see Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i]…) Indeed, the medical evidence showed that no treatment was required for the bruising, and that both parents had promptly sought treatment for the unrelated ankle injury.

As for the father, the undisputed evidence showed that the bruising occurred before Sophia was brought to the father's residence for a weekend visit. Further, the evidence established that it was the mother—not the father—who had left the children in the boyfriend's care. When the father took custody of Sophia on Saturday, she did not appear to be in pain, and after monitoring her throughout the weekend, the father, in consultation with the mother, agreed that Sophia should be seen by her pediatrician on Monday. Matter of Alana H. (Caitlin M.), 2018 NY Slip Op 06534, Second Dept 10-3-18

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST MOTHER AND FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD'S BRUISES NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST MOTHER AND FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD'S BRUISES NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST MOTHER AND FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD'S BRUISES NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Court Has the Discretion to Deny a Motion to Change Venue Where the Statutory Time-Limits for the Demand and Motion Are Not Met—Discretion Not Abused Here
ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DEEMED SERVICE COMPLETE DESPITE LATE FILING OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, RATHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN EXTRA TIME TO FILE AN ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).
THE PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP OF A VEHICLE CREATED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE CAN BE REBUTTED BY PROOF OF DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISCOVER THE INSURER’S FILE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT EXERCISED DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH MRNACAJ GESTURED THAT SALIAN COULD PULL OUT OF A DRIVEWAY INTO MRNACAJ’S LANE, MRNACAJ COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN THAT SALIAN WOULD CONTINUE INTO THE OTHER LANE WHERE SHE WAS STRUCK, MRNACAJ’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Motions for Findings Allowing Child to Petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status Should Have Been Granted
Overriding Village Legislative Cap on Number of Taxicab Licenses Not a Proper Subject of Mandamus Action—Applicability of Mandamus Explained
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.
​ IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT (EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY NOT CONSIDERED) AND THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT NOTIFIED A TENANT OF THE FORECLOSURE AS REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1303 (SECOND 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

PARTIES’ CONSENT TO A DNA TEST DID NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A HEARING... PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING...