You are here: / / IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING STEMMING FROM THE PARENTS’ REFUSAL TO...
, ,

IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING STEMMING FROM THE PARENTS’ REFUSAL TO ALLOW THEIR TEENAGE CHILD TO RETURN HOME, THE PARENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF THEIR TEENAGE CHILD’S BEHAVIOR WHICH RESULTED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND AN ORDER OF PROTECTION IN FAVOR OF FATHER, AS WELL AS EVIDENCE OF THEIR ATTEMPTS TO MEET WITH THE AGENCY AND WORK OUT A PLAN (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined that respondent-parents should have been allowed to present evidence of their teenage child’s behavior in this neglect proceeding. The parents refused to allow the child to return home after a physical fight between the child and father which resulted in criminal proceedings against the child and an order of protection in favor of the father:

Parents are obligated to support a child under the age of 21 (Family Court Act § 413[1][a]) and to exercise a “minimum degree of care” in supplying the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, and education … . In determining whether a parent has neglected a child by failing to meet that standard, the court “must evaluate parental behavior objectively,” by asking whether “a reasonable and prudent parent [would] have so acted, or failed to act, under the circumstances then and there existing” … . This Court has concluded in many circumstances that a child’s history of disciplinary issues did not justify a parent in excluding the child from the home while failing to cooperate with the agency’s efforts to address the child’s problems and to return the child to the home … .

However, none of those cases involved pending criminal proceedings and an order of protection against the child and in favor of one parent. Respondents were entitled to a full and fair opportunity to present evidence … showing that they acted reasonably as prudent parents under all the circumstances … , and that, based on a founded fear it would be unsafe for the child to return home, they were unable to continue to care for him … . Instead, the court limited evidence to the time period alleged in the petition, precluding respondents from presenting other evidence concerning the child’s behavior. Respondents also were precluded from presenting evidence of their attorney’s communications with the agency, which was offered to show their willingness to meet and plan with the agency provided that the child was not present and their attorney could be present. Matter of Elijah M. (Robin M.), 2019 NY Slip Op 05471, First Dept 7-9-19

 

You might also like
NO EVIDENCE ROBBERY VICTIM SAW A FIREARM, ROBBERY FIRST CONVICTION VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
HERE THE PLAINTIFF WAS IN PRIVITY WITH A NONPARTY WHICH WAS DEEMED TO HAVE HAD A “VICARIOUS DAY IN COURT” SUCH THAT THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA PRECLUDED PLAINTIFF’S ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
NEW YORK LAW APPLIES TO DISCOVERY IN THIS SUIT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AGAINST EXXON ALLEGING FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH EXXON’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING, NO ACCOUNTANT PRIVILEGE IN NEW YORK.
MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY PLAINTIFF’S GENERAL COUNSEL PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE (FIRST DEPT).
NOTES TAKEN BY AN OBSERVER HIRED BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY TO WITNESS AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANTS’ DOCTOR ARE PRIVILEGED AS MATERIAL PREPARED FOR TRIAL, THE OBSERVER WAS ACTING AS AN AGENT OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, UNTIMELY CROSS MOTION CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THE ISSUES RAISED ARE THE SAME AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S FIRING FOR WORKPLACE DISRUPTION AND CUSTOMER RELATIONS STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S PERCEIVED INVOLVEMENT IN A NOTORIOUS ASSAULT CASE [HIS CONVICTIONS WERE VACATED] DID NOT VIOLATE THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW.
15 MONTH DELAY IN ARTICLE 10 TRIAL DID NOT DEPRIVE RESPONDENT OF DUE PROCESS.

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

CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO TWO DISTINCT AND SEPARATE... FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHICH DID NOT HAVE GUARD RAILS ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY...