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
Defendant Handcuffed, Post-Arrest Search of Backpack Unlawful
Breach of Contract Allegations Did Not Give Rise to Tort Causes of Action—No Duty Independent of the Contract Itself
DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT WAIVE HIS CLIENT’S RIGHT TO HAVE HIM ATTEND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION BY SENDING HIS PARALEGAL, WHO WAS TURNED AWAY; DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD HIS PRESENCE WAS REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).
Deed Was Not a “Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure;” Deed Therefore Did Not Transfer Title; Mortgagor’s Interest Can Be Extinguished Only by Foreclosure
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS DID NOT ADVISE IT OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMMERCIAL LEASE WHICH EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATED THE OPTION FOR PLAINTIFF TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR $11.4 MILLION IF THE LANDLORD RECEIVES A BONA FIDE PURCHASE OFFER; THE LANDLORD IN FACT RECEIVED SUCH AN OFFER AND PLAINITFF EXERCISED ITS OPTION, BUT PAID $14.5 MILLION (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE RECORD WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT RE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA; THE PRECISE NATURE OF COUNSEL’S ADVICE WAS NOT IN THE RECORD; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
Lost Profits Not Recoverable—Too Speculative and Not Contemplated in the Agreement
ASSIGNMENT TO PLAINTIFF OF ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST TO $626 MILLION IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION FRAUD CLAIMS; THE RIGHT TO SUE MORGAN STANLEY FOR FRAUD, THEREFORE, WAS NOT ASSIGNED TO PLAINTIFF.

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

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...