You are here: / / EXCESSIVE ABSENCES FROM SCHOOL SUPPORTED THE EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT FINDINGS,...
,

EXCESSIVE ABSENCES FROM SCHOOL SUPPORTED THE EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT FINDINGS, BUT NEGLECT BECAUSE OF MENTAL ILLNESS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined that, although the petitioner demonstrated the parents educationally neglected the children, the petitioner did not demonstrate father neglected the children because of his mental illness:

A preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court’s finding that parents educationally neglected the children (see Family Court Act §§ 1012[f][i][B], 1046[b][i]). During the fall 2022 term and the previous school year, both children were absent more than half of the school days, and evidence of excessive unexcused absences from school will support a finding of neglect … . Even crediting the father’s testimony that he made efforts to ensure the children attended school, we find that petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish that the father educationally neglected the children … . Despite years of outreach from the children’s schools, the father failed to follow up, attend important meetings, or obtain proffered services. School records indicated that the children’s academic progress suffered due to excessive absences and tardiness; both children were failing classes and not progressing towards annual goals. Under these circumstances, even though the father spoke with school personnel, inquired about assistance, and ultimately requested a reevaluation for one of the children, he nevertheless failed to take adequate steps to prevent the children from experiencing significant educational delays resulting from poor attendance … .

… [P]etitioner did not satisfy its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the father neglected the children because of his mental illness … . Although the father did not dispute that he suffered from depression, he testified that he was engaged in mental health treatment, including therapy and medication, and petitioner did not provide either documentary evidence or expert testimony demonstrating that the father’s mental illness interfered with his “judgment and parenting abilities” or connecting the father’s depression with his inadequate efforts to ensure the children attended school, thereby placing the children at imminent risk of physical, mental or emotional impairment” … . Matter of S.M.W. (J.R.M.), 2025 NY Slip Op 05181, First Dept 9-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a rare discussion of the criteria for “educational” and “mental-illness” neglect of children.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT HAPPENED FOUND INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, DISSENT ARGUED THE TESTIMONY RAISED CLASSIC QUESTIONS OF FACT FOR THE JURY TO DETERMINE (FIRST DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A PERMANENTLY AFFIXED LADDER VIBRATED CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL; PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE; NO SHOWING PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE HE SHOULD WEAR A HARNESS AND FAILURE TO DO SO WOULD CONSTITUTE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS NOT A BAR TO RECOVERY (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT MADE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF HER PLEA AGREEMENT; SENTENCE REDUCED AND CONVICTION MODIFIED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF, WHO SUED UNDER THE NAME MARGARET DOE, TO AMEND THE CAPTION TO INCLUDE HER LEGAL NAME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF PRESENTED EVIDENCE SUING UNDER HER OWN NAME WOULD HAVE SEVERE MENTAL-HEALTH CONSEQUENCES (FIRST DEPT).
CLAIMANT COULD NOT SEEK COMPENSATION FOR PERIODIC FLOODING OF HIS LOT UNDER THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW; THERE WAS NO DE JURE TAKING BY THE CITY, AND THE CRITERIA FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION WERE NOT MET (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE.
Charging an Additional 10% Contingency Fee for the Appeal, On Top of the 33 1/3% Contingency Fee for the Trial, for a Total Contingency Fee of 43 1/3 %, Was Proper—Motion Court Did Not Have the Power to Alter the Fee Agreement Sua Sponte and the Motion Court No Longer Had Jurisdiction Over the Case When It Made the Alteration

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

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSELS “AFFIRMATION OF GOOD FAITH” WAS DEFICIENT;... EXPULSION OF PETITIONER-STUDENT FROM THE PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT PROGRAM “SHOCKED...