You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE PARENTS HAD BEEN FOUND TO HAVE ABUSED THE CHILDREN, THEY HAVE...

ALTHOUGH THE PARENTS HAD BEEN FOUND TO HAVE ABUSED THE CHILDREN, THEY HAVE DEMONSTRATED THEY ARE LOVING AND CARING PARENTS; IN LIGHT OF THE CHILDREN’S EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH FOSTER CARE, THE MOTION FOR A TRIAL DISCHARGE TO THE PARENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the motion for a trial discharge of the children to the parents, who had been found to have abused the children, should have been granted:

Family Court’s denial of respondents’ motions pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1061 for a trial discharge of the children Ashlynn and Yeovanny to their care, a position vigorously supported by the foster care agency and the attorney for the children, does not have a sound and substantial basis in the record … . At the time of the motions, these children had recently been placed in their fourth foster home, and the agency was already investigating a fifth placement. Meanwhile, respondents had complied with all services, including full mental health evaluations ordered by the court at disposition, regularly attended unsupervised visitation, and had received uniformly positive reports from those who observed them interact with the children that they were loving and caring parents whose parenting skills were continually improving.

Under these circumstances, although respondents continued to maintain that Ian and Yeovanny’s injuries were accidental, “their acceptance of ultimate responsibility for [the children’s] injuries [was] demonstrated by their conduct” … . In view of the parents’ demonstrated ability to care for the children, ACS [Administration for Children’s Services] failed to show that it would be in Ashlynn and Yeovanny’s best interest for continued foster placement … especially when weighed against the emotional harm on children when they are removed from the home … . Such emotional harm was amply documented here and disturbingly downplayed by both petitioner and the court. The record shows that Ashlynn suffered from severe anxiety, nightmares, and other mental health issues that her therapist and agency caseworker attributed to being separated from respondents and shuttled through a succession of foster care placements. At the hearing on the motions, the agency caseworker submitted evidence that Ashlynn had to be taken to a hospital emergency room for night terrors shortly after she began living in her fourth foster home. Based on the foregoing, respondents showed “good cause” under Family Ct Act § 1061 for a trial discharge. Matter of Ashlynn R. (Maria R.-Yeovany R.), 2020 NY Slip Op 07726, First Dept 12-22-20

 

You might also like
NO NEED FOR ARRESTING OFFICER TO TESTIFY AT SUPPRESSION HEARING, INFERENCE OF MUTUAL COMMUNICATION APPLIED.
AFTER FINDING SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE BY DEFENDANTS, THE JUDGE FASHIONED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION TO BE GIVEN AT TRIAL; THE CHARGE IMPROPERLY REQUIRED, RATHER THAN PERMITTED, THE JURY TO FIND SPOLIATION; THE JUDGE WAS ORDERED TO REVISE THE CHARGE (FIRST DEPT).
Failure to Wear Hard Hat Does Not Preclude 240(1) Claim
There Is No “Imminent Litigation” Requirement for the Application of the “Common-Interest Privilege”—Documents Generated During Merger Negotiations Among Two Corporations and Their Counsel May, Therefore, Be Protected by the Privilege, Which Is an Exception to the Rule that the Presence of a Third Party at a Communication Between Counsel and Client Destroys the Privilege
Plaintiff’s Use of a Partially Open A-Frame Ladder Did Not Constitute Misuse of a Safety Device—Directed Verdict in Favor of Plaintiff on Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action Was Proper/Plaintiff’s Apparent Failure to Turn Over All of the Relevant Medical Records Required a New Trial on Damages
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT CITY WAS AWARE OF A DEFECT IN THE SOFTBALL PLAYING FIELD, WHETHER THE DEFECT WAS NEGLIGENTLY REPAIRED AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
LOSS OF RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS DUE TO COVID DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS OR DAMAGE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BUSINESS-INTERRUPTION INSURANCE POLICY (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS STANDARD APPLIED IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-POLICE CAR ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST 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

THE OMISSION OF NON-ELEMENTAL FACTUAL INFORMATION, HERE THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT,... A PHOTOGRAPH OF DEFENDANT WITH A HANDGUN TAKEN SIX WEEKS BEFORE THE SHOOTING...