You are here: / / THE PARENT’S INABILITY TO CONTROL THE CHILD’S BROTHER PRECLUDED...

THE PARENT’S INABILITY TO CONTROL THE CHILD’S BROTHER PRECLUDED THE RETURN OF THE CHILD TO THE PARENT’S CUSTODY AFTER TEMPORARY REMOVAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the record did not support the return of the child to the parent’s custody after temporary removal. The Second Department found that the parent’s difficulty controlling the child’s brother, who requires constant supervision, put the child at risk:

“An application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028(a) for the return of a child who has been temporarily removed shall be granted unless the court finds that the return presents an imminent risk to the child’s life or health'” … . “In a proceeding for removal of a child, the Family Court must weigh, in the factual setting before it, whether the imminent risk to the child can be mitigated by reasonable efforts to avoid removal'” … . “Ultimately, the Family Court must balance that risk against the harm removal might bring, and it must determine factually which course is in the child’s best interests” … . On appeal, this Court must assess whether the record provides a sound and substantial basis to support the Family Court’s determination … .

Here, the Family Court’s determination granting the parents’ application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 for the return of the child to their custody lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record … . The evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the child’s sibling, Michael, has special needs that require him to be under constant supervision, and that on a prior occasion the parents’ inability to control Michael resulted in serious physical injuries to one of the child’s siblings. Notwithstanding the parents’ willingness to comply with court-ordered services, the parents and Michael had not yet completed those services at the time of the hearing. In our view, the parents’ inability to adequately control Michael would present an imminent risk to the child’s life or health if the child were returned to the parents. Given the circumstances of the family’s living situation at the time of the hearing, this risk could not be mitigated by the conditions imposed by the court. Matter of Nicholas O. (Jenny F.), 2020 NY Slip Op 03663, Second Dept 7-1-20

 

You might also like
THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE POLICE OFFICER DEFENDANT PUNCHED WAS ENGAGED IN A LAWFUL DUTY AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT, THE PEOPLE ARE HELD TO THE ‘HEAVIER BURDEN’ IN THE DEFINITION OF ‘LAWFUL DUTY’ PROVIDED TO THE JURY WITHOUT OBJECTION, DEFENDANT’S ASSAULT CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY’S CONTINGENCY FEE IN THIS EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION MATTER WAS UNENFORCEABLE, THE ATTORNEY MAY BE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT UNDER A QUANTUM MERUIT THEORY.
MISLEVELED SIDEWALK WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT.
HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS’ COMPLAINT AGAINST HEALTH PLAN STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF AN IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING AND VIOLATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 4406-D (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS COMMENCED IN DECEDENT’S NAME AFTER DECEDENT HAD DIED, THE ACTION WAS NOT A NULLITY AND WAS PROPERLY REVIVED WITHIN SIX MONTHS PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a); SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
Late Disclaimer of Coverage Invalid 
FAILURE TO SUBMIT PROOF OF MAILING THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 308 (2) IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (FIRST DEPT).
INSTALLING A TV ON A WALL IS NOT AN ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (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

NEW THEORY PRESENTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT... THE CONDITIONAL DIRECTIVE THAT FATHER BE AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY IF MOTHER DID...