You are here: / / IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING STEMMING FROM THE PARENTS’ REFUSAL TO...
, ,

IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING STEMMING FROM THE PARENTS’ REFUSAL TO ALLOW THEIR TEENAGE CHILD TO RETURN HOME, THE PARENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF THEIR TEENAGE CHILD’S BEHAVIOR WHICH RESULTED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND AN ORDER OF PROTECTION IN FAVOR OF FATHER, AS WELL AS EVIDENCE OF THEIR ATTEMPTS TO MEET WITH THE AGENCY AND WORK OUT A PLAN (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined that respondent-parents should have been allowed to present evidence of their teenage child’s behavior in this neglect proceeding. The parents refused to allow the child to return home after a physical fight between the child and father which resulted in criminal proceedings against the child and an order of protection in favor of the father:

Parents are obligated to support a child under the age of 21 (Family Court Act § 413[1][a]) and to exercise a “minimum degree of care” in supplying the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, and education … . In determining whether a parent has neglected a child by failing to meet that standard, the court “must evaluate parental behavior objectively,” by asking whether “a reasonable and prudent parent [would] have so acted, or failed to act, under the circumstances then and there existing” … . This Court has concluded in many circumstances that a child’s history of disciplinary issues did not justify a parent in excluding the child from the home while failing to cooperate with the agency’s efforts to address the child’s problems and to return the child to the home … .

However, none of those cases involved pending criminal proceedings and an order of protection against the child and in favor of one parent. Respondents were entitled to a full and fair opportunity to present evidence … showing that they acted reasonably as prudent parents under all the circumstances … , and that, based on a founded fear it would be unsafe for the child to return home, they were unable to continue to care for him … . Instead, the court limited evidence to the time period alleged in the petition, precluding respondents from presenting other evidence concerning the child’s behavior. Respondents also were precluded from presenting evidence of their attorney’s communications with the agency, which was offered to show their willingness to meet and plan with the agency provided that the child was not present and their attorney could be present. Matter of Elijah M. (Robin M.), 2019 NY Slip Op 05471, First Dept 7-9-19

 

You might also like
WHEN THE CONTRACTOR’S EMPLOYEE ARRIVED TO CLEAN THE TANK, THE OPENING WAS COVERED ONLY BY CARDBOARD; AFTER FINISHING THE WORK, THE EMPLOYEE REPLACED THE CARDBOARD COVER; PLAINTIFF SUBSEQUENTLY STEPPED ON THE CARDBOARD AND FELL INTO THE TANK; THE CONTRACTOR’S EMPLOYEE DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WITHIN THE MEANING OF ESPINAL, 98 NY2D 140 (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE ​DEFENDANT’S AGENTS TRANSACTED BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION.
NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERY BETWEEN LAW SCHOOL AND AN ALLEGED DIPLOMA MILL, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.
DEFENDANT’S BURGLARY CONVICTION WAS BASED SOLELY ON A SODA CAN WITH HIS DNA ON IT; THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE COMPLAINT WAS NEVER PROPERLY AMENDED TO ADD DEFENDANT AS A PARTY PURSUANT TO CPLR 1003 OR CPLR 3025 REQUIRING DISMISSAL (FIRST DEPT). ​
PAYMENT GUARANTEES NOT ENTITLED TO EXPEDITED TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213 AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY, REFERENCE TO OTHER DOCUMENTS WAS NEEDED.
OFFICE OF MEDICAID INSPECTOR GENERAL COULD NOT SEEK REIMBURSEMENT OF OVERPAYMENTS IN AN AMOUNT HIGHER THAN SPECIFICALLY INDICATED IN ITS WRITTEN NOTICE.
FAILURE TO FILE AFFIDAVITS OF SERVICE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT WITHIN 20 DAYS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; SERVICE IS DEEMED COMPLETE 10 DAYS AFTER FILING A MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITH THE AFFIDAVITS OF SERVICE (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO TWO DISTINCT AND SEPARATE... FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHICH DID NOT HAVE GUARD RAILS ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY...