You are here: / / HERE THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUMMARILY MAKE A SEVERE ABUSE...
, , ,

HERE THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUMMARILY MAKE A SEVERE ABUSE FINDING AND TERMINATE RESPONDENTS’ PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED UPON A PRIOR ABUSE HEARING; SEVERE ABUSE WAS NOT ALLEGED IN THE PRIOR HEARING; A SEVERE ABUSE FINDING MUST BE BASED ON A “CLEAR AND CONVINCING” STANDARD, NOT THE “PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE” STANDARD APPLIED IN THE PRIOR HEARING; IN ADDITION, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED AN ORDER OF DISPOSITION WITHOUT HOLDING A DISPOSITIONAL HEARING; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court’s “severe abuse” finding and the consequent termination of parental rights, determined it was error to make these rulings based upon a prior abuse hearing because “severe abuse” was not alleged in that hearing. In addition, a finding of “severe abuse” must be based on “clear and convincing evidence,” not the “preponderance of the evidence” standard applied in the prior hearing. Also, the judge should not have issued an order of disposition without holding a dispositional hearing:

… [T]he court did not have the authority, in the context of this Social Services Law § 384-b proceeding, to retroactively make a finding of severe abuse under Family Court Act § 1051 (e) based upon the evidence adduced during the prior article 10 abuse proceeding. … Family Court Act § 1051 (e) provides that in an article 10 abuse case, the court may “[i]n addition to a finding of abuse, . . . enter a finding of severe abuse or repeated abuse, . . . which shall be admissible in a proceeding to terminate parental rights pursuant to [Social Services Law § 384-b (4) (e)] . . . If the court makes such additional finding of severe abuse or repeated abuse, the court shall state the grounds for its determination, which shall be based upon clear and convincing evidence.”

Thus, while it is true that a court is permitted to make a severe abuse finding as part of the disposition in an article 10 abuse case … , that did not occur here. Indeed, in the context of the underlying article 10 proceeding, petitioner did not seek a determination that Respondents severely abused the child, and the court made no such determination. Moreover, the entirety of the court’s findings in the article 10 matter were based upon a preponderance of the evidence—not clear and convincing evidence as required by the statute … . Finally, we note that the court improperly issued an order of disposition in this case before conducting a dispositional hearing (see Family Ct Act § 631; Social Services Law § 384-b [8] [f]). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for further proceedings on the petition.  Matter of Kevin V. (Sara L.), 2025 NY Slip Op 06422, Fourth Dept 11-21-25

 

You might also like
TRIAL EVIDENCE RENDERED THE SINGLE-COUNT INDICTMENT DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT).
LOCAL LAW WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WAS PROPERLY DECLARED INVALID 4TH DEPT.
Acquittal on Assault Charges in First Trial Did Not Preclude Presentation of Evidence of the Assaults in Second Trial—Collateral Estoppel Doctrine Could Not Be Successfully Invoked Because the Meaning of the Acquittals Was Nearly Impossible to Discern
Pat-down Search Pursuant to a Stop for a Traffic Infraction Unlawful—Injury to Officer During Unlawful Search Will Not Support Assault Conviction (Which Requires the Officer Be Injured Performing a Lawful Duty)
PLAINTIFF, WHO FELL THROUGH A HOLE IN A HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK COVERED BY LABOR 240 (1) OR 241 (6), PLAINTIFF WAS MEASURING WINDOWS FOR FUTURE INSTALLATION OF WINDOW TREATMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE TRIABLE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DEFECT IN THE WALKWAY WAS TRIVIAL AND WHETHER THE DEFECT CAUSED THE SLIP AND FALL.
Defendant Invoked His Right to Counsel By Asking a Police Officer to Retrieve Defendant’s Lawyer’s Phone Number from Defendant’s Wallet—Subsequent Statements Should Have Been Suppressed/Defense Counsel’s Failure to Move to Suppress Weapon Seized from Defendant’s Person Deprived Defendant of Effective Assistance
FALL FROM FIRST FLOOR TO BASEMENT FLOOR IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), THE UNGUARDED OPENING VIOLATED A PROVISION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE.

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 MOTION COURT PROPERLY ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF’S... IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT CASE, DEFENDANT BAR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DRIVER...