You are here: / / REMOVAL OF THE CHILD FROM MOTHER’S CARE WAS NOT WARRANTED, NO SHOWING...

REMOVAL OF THE CHILD FROM MOTHER’S CARE WAS NOT WARRANTED, NO SHOWING OF AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE CHILD’S LIFE OR HEALTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the child should not have been removed for the mother’s care because there was not showing of an imminent threat to the child’s life or health:

Upon a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027, “temporary removal is only authorized where the court finds it necessary to avoid imminent risk to the child’s life or health'” … . “In determining a removal application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027, the court must engage in a balancing test of the imminent risk with the best interests of the child and, where appropriate, the reasonable efforts made to avoid removal or continuing removal'”  … . “Imminent danger, however, must be near or impending, not merely possible” … .

Here, the petitioner failed to establish that the child would be subjected to imminent risk if he were not removed from the mother’s custody pending the outcome of the neglect proceeding … . The Family Court’s concerns about, inter alia, whether the mother would keep in contact with the petitioner or return to court for continued proceedings did not amount to an imminent risk to the child’s life or health that could not be mitigated by reasonable efforts to avoid removal. Matter of Cameron L. (Ashley L.), 2019 NY Slip Op 09268, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ISSUES ON APPEAL COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN AN APPEAL WHICH WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, THE COURT EXERCISED ITS JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE INSTANT APPEAL; THE MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW WAS BROUGHT BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED HER CASE AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Warn Defendant His Guilty Plea Could Lead to Deportation, Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Decision in Padilla v Kentucky, Did Not Constitute Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
ATTORNEY HAD APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SIGN STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WHICH THEREFORE BOUND THE PLAINTIFF TO ITS TERMS (SECOND DEPT).
CONDOMINIUM BOARD STATED BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE FIRM WHICH INSPECTED THE CONDOMINIUMS DURING CONSTRUCTION 2ND DEPT.
INCIDENT REPORTS DID NOT PROVIDE THE CITY WITH NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
CANDIDATE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO CHALLENGES TO SIGNATURES ON THE DESIGNATING PETITION, ALTHOUGH THE SUBSCRIBING WITNESS HAD TEMPORARILY MOVED OUT OF THE RESIDENCE DESCRIBED IN THE STATEMENT OF WITNESS SHE INTENDED TO RETURN, DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED (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

MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MADE AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS FILED... MOTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THERE...