You are here: / / FATHER’S ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF ONE CHILD, HANNAH D, SUPPORTED THE...
,

FATHER’S ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF ONE CHILD, HANNAH D, SUPPORTED THE FINDING FATHER DERIVATIVELY ABUSED TWO OTHER CHILDREN, EVEN THOUGH ONE WAS AN INFANT AND THE OTHER HAD NOT BEEN BORN AT THE TIME OF THE ABUSE OF HANNAH D (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the abuse of one daughter, Hannah D, supported a finding father derivatively abused two other children, even though one was an infant and the other had not been born at the time of the abuse of Hannah D:

… [A] preponderance of the evidence supported a finding of derivative abuse and neglect. The nature of the father’s direct abuse of Hannah D., the frequency of the father’s acts, and the circumstances of the father’s commission of the acts evidence fundamental flaws in the father’s understanding of the duties of parenthood. In addition, the father’s actions affirmatively created a substantial risk of physical injury which would likely cause impairment of the subject children’s health within the meaning of Family Court Act § 1012 (e)(ii), thus requiring a finding that the subject children have been derivatively abused and neglected … . The finding of derivative abuse and neglect is not undermined by the fact that at the time of the father’s abuse of Hannah D., one of the subject children was an infant and the other had not yet been born … . The evidence demonstrates that the father’s parental judgment and impulse control are so defective as to create a substantial risk to any child in his care … . Moreover, the father failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the condition cannot reasonably be expected to exist currently or in the foreseeable future … . Matter of Davena A. (Christopher A.), 2024 NY Slip Op 05439, Second Dept 11-6-24

Practice Point: The abuse of one child can support a finding other children were derivatively abused, even if the other children were infants or had not been born at the time of the abuse of the eldest child.

 

You might also like
Question of Fact Whether Property Owners Owed a Duty to Protect Plaintiff from an Assault During a Fair on the Premises
EVEN ONE INSTANCE OF EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A NEGLECT FINDING 2ND DEPT.
CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICERS MAY ONLY BE LIABLE FOR LABOR LAW (WAGE-PAYMENT-RELATED) VIOLATIONS IF THEY EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS OF THE CORPORATION, WHICH WAS ALLEGED HERE (SECOND DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE, THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EPIDURAL INJECTIONS WERE DONE NEGLIGENTLY; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SIGNED A CONSENT FORM WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COUNSEL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT SEEK LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION FOR FIVE YEARS AFTER PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO CPLR 1021 (SECOND DEPT). ​
HERE PLAINTIFF HAD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ENTERING AN INTERSECTION AND DEFENDANT FAILED TO YIELD; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AND DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS’ COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
CIVIL CONSPIRACY CANNOT BE BROUGHT AS AN INDEPENDENT TORT IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN A PLANK ON A SCAFFOLD HE WAS ERECTING BROKE (SECOND DEPT).