You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE FOUND BISHME’S DAUGHTER TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY...
,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE FOUND BISHME’S DAUGHTER TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY ABUSED AND NEGLECTED BASED UPON BISHME’S ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF ANOTHER CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the derivative abuse and neglect petition against Bishme A. should not have been dismissed and found that Bishme A. had derivatively abused his own daughter based upon the abuse and neglect of another child, Jassir R.:

The Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter ACS) commenced two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. One proceeding was against Jazmin R. and Bishme A., alleging that they abused and neglected the child Jassir R. when that child was approximately 14 months of age. The other proceeding was against Bishme A., alleging that he derivatively abused his own daughter, Akeliah A., who was several weeks older than Jassir R. I… [A]fter a fact-finding hearing, the court … denied the petition alleging that Bishme A. derivatively abused Akeliah A., and dismissed that proceeding. …

The Family Court should have found that Bishme A. derivatively abused Akeliah A. In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, “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” (Family Ct Act § 1046[a][i]). ACS established that Jassir R. suffered extensive inflicted injuries while in the care of Bishme A. Based on this evidence, ACS established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Bishme A. derivatively abused Akeliah A. Matter of Akeliah A. (Bishme A.), 2018 NY Slip Op 08925, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

You might also like
Review Criteria for Actions by Zoning Boards of Appeal
Sellers Had No Duty to Disclose Recorded Easement—Caveat Emptor
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1).
CLAIMANT STRUCK A DOWNED LIGHT POLE WHICH HAD ROTTED BELOW GROUND, STATE DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION.
MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE NEGLECT FINDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS STATUTORY RAPE CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Answer Submitted Pro Se by Corporation Is a Nullity
THE DIGNITY FOR ALL STUDENTS ACT (DASA) DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR IN-SCHOOL BULLYING AND HARASSMENT (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

DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY INDICATING DEFENDANT WAS IDENTIFIED IN A LINEUP... COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE REQUEST FOR A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION...