You are here: / / Mother’s Failure to Seek Medical Care for Child Coupled With Mother’s Men...

Mother’s Failure to Seek Medical Care for Child Coupled With Mother’s Mental Illness Supported Neglect Finding

The Third Department determined Family Court’s neglect finding was supported by evidence mother did not seek needed dental and medical care for her child and suffered from psychological problems which created an imminent risk of harm to the child:

To establish neglect, a petitioner must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the child’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired due to the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i]…). In determining the minimum degree of care, courts must objectively evaluate parental behavior in terms of whether “a reasonable and prudent parent [would] have so acted, or failed to act, under the circumstances then and there existing” … . On this basis, a failure to provide adequate medical care and/or follow through with necessary medical treatment constitutes neglect… . * * *”While evidence of mental illness, alone, does not support a finding of neglect, such evidence may be part of a neglect determination when the proof further demonstrates that a respondent’s condition creates an imminent risk of physical, mental or emotional harm to a child”… . Matter of Josephine BB …, 516132, 3rd Dept 2-27-14

 

You might also like
THE BOARD’S CONCLUSION, BASED UPON EXPERT TESTIMONY, THAT CLAIMANT’S STROKE WAS CAUSED BY PRE-EXISTING MEDICAL CONDITIONS AND NOT THE WORK CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF THE STROKE WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE DISTURBED ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).
FOR PURPOSES OF A PERMANENT NEGLECT/TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING, DIRECT PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD WITH A SUITABLE PERSON MEETS THE DEFINITION OF PLACEMENT IN THE “CARE OF AN AUTHORIZED AGENCY” SUCH THAT A PERMANENT NEGLECT PROCEEDING IS AVAILABLE AFTER DIRECT PLACEMENT FOR ONE YEAR; ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT’S PARENTAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN TERMINATED WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED, THE “EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE” WAS INVOKED (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONERS VIOLATED THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW BY FILLING BELOW THE HIGH WATER MARK OF A POND; THE POND MET THE DEFINITION OF ‘NAVIGABLE WATERS’ AND WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE STATUTORY PROHIBITION (THIRD DEPT).
LABOR LAW 240(1) LIABILITY IS NONDELEGABLE AND EXTENDS TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.
DEFAMATION AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ELEMENTS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT). ​
Corporation Is a Proper Respondent in an Article 78/Mandamus to Compel Proceeding
PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY FROM EXPOSURE TO COVID IN THE WORKPLACE MUST BE ASSESSED USING THE SAME CRITERIA AS ARE APPLIED TO PHYSICAL INJURY; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT). ​
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DECEDENT’S STATE UNIVERSITY OWED DECEDENT A DUTY TO WARN HIM OF THE HOSTILITY HARBORED BY ANOTHER STUDENT WHO ULTIMATELY MURDERED DECEDENT (THIRD 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

Questions of Fact About Defamatory Meaning and Malice Re: Statements Concerning... Criteria for Interpreting a Settlement Agreement Which Is Incorporated But Not...