You are here: / Family Law
,

DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support a drug-related neglect finding:

We agree with respondents that petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence “that [the children's] physical, mental or emotional condition[s have] been impaired or [are] in imminent danger of becoming impaired” (… see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]). Although the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing established that respondents used illicit drugs, the mere use of illicit drugs is insufficient to support a finding of neglect … , and we conclude that petitioner failed to establish the requisite causal nexus between respondents' illicit drug use and the alleged impairment or imminent danger of impairment of the children's physical, mental, or emotional condition … . Petitioner produced no evidence that respondents ever used drugs in the presence of the children … . Moreover, although the younger child suffered two accidents, each of which resulted in a fractured wrist, petitioner offered no evidence that respondents were using drugs or under the influence of drugs at the time the accidents occurred, respondents' innocent explanations for the accidents were uncontroverted at the fact-finding hearing, and there was no evidence of any impairment or imminent danger of impairment to the older child arising from respondents' alleged drug use. We further conclude that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of neglect by submitting evidence that respondents used drugs “to the extent that [such use] has or would ordinarily have the effect of producing in the user thereof a substantial state of stupor, unconsciousness, intoxication, hallucination, disorientation, or incompetence, or a substantial impairment of judgment, or a substantial manifestation of irrationality” (§ 1046 [a] [iii]). Absent from the record was any evidence as to the duration or frequency of respondents' drug use … . Matter of Delanie S. (Jeremy S.), 2018 NY Slip Op 06677, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

FAMILY LAW (DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support a drug-related neglect finding against father:

We agree with the father that the court's finding of neglect is not supported by the requisite preponderance of the evidence (see generally Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]). “[P]roof that a person repeatedly misuses . . . drugs . . . to the extent that it has or would ordinarily have the effect of producing in the user thereof a substantial state of stupor, unconsciousness, intoxication, hallucination, disorientation, or incompetence, or a substantial impairment of judgment, or a substantial manifestation of irrationality, shall be prima facie evidence that a child of or who is the legal responsibility of such person is a neglected child except that such drug . . . misuse shall not be prima facie evidence of neglect when such person is voluntarily and regularly participating in a recognized rehabilitative program” … . Here, petitioner submitted evidence that the father tested positive for THC, oxycodone, and opioids on one occasion, which is insufficient to establish that the father repeatedly misused drugs … . The father's admission to using marihuana was also insufficient to meet petitioner's burden without further evidence as to the “duration, frequency, or repetitiveness of his drug use, or whether [the father] was ever under the influence of drugs while in the presence of the subject child” … . Matter of Bentley C. (Zachary D.), 2018 NY Slip Op 06667, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

FAMILY LAW (DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT, DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING, FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY RELIED SOLELY UPON AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE CHILD AND UNSWORN DOCUMENTS FROM MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND THERAPISTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Family Court should not have ruled on mother's petition to modify custody without holding a hearing. In addition the First Department noted that Family Court improperly relied solely upon the child's wishes and unsworn documentary evidence:

Family Court improperly determined the mother's modification petition and the father's petitions for enforcement, parenting time modification, and sole custody by suspending all contact between the father and child without a hearing … . Modification of custody or visitation, even on a temporary basis, requires a hearing, except in cases of emergency … . We have held that a hearing may be “as abbreviated, in the court's broad discretion, as the particular allegations and known circumstances warrant” … . However, here, the court granted the drastic remedy of suspension of all contact between parent and child based solely upon its in camera interview with the child and its review of the motion papers and some portion of the court file, which included an unsworn and uncertified report by Family Court Mental Health Services (MHS) and unsworn letters from the child's treating therapist and from therapists who had seen the parties and child for family therapy … . Matter of Kenneth J. v Lesley B., 2018 NY Slip Op 06625, First Dept 10-4-18

FAMILY LAW (CUSTODY, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON MOTHER'S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING, FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY RELIED SOLELY UPON AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE CHILD AND UNSWORN DOCUMENTS FROM MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND THERAPISTS (FIRST DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON MOTHER'S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING, FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY RELIED SOLELY UPON AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE CHILD AND UNSWORN DOCUMENTS FROM MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND THERAPISTS (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON MOTHER'S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING, FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY RELIED SOLELY UPON AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE CHILD AND UNSWORN DOCUMENTS FROM MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND THERAPISTS (FIRST DEPT))

PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that mother's petition to modify a visitation order should not have been denied without a hearing:

” A party seeking to modify a prior visitation order must show that there has been a sufficient change in circumstances since the entry of the order such that modification is warranted to further the [child]'s best interests'” … . The best interests of the child must be determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances… , and “[s]upervised visitation is appropriately required only where it is established that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child” … . “Generally, where a facially sufficient petition has been filed, modification of a Family Ct Act article 6 custody and visitation order requires a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard” … . A decision regarding child custody and visitation should be based on admissible evidence …

Here, the Family Court should not have, without a hearing, in effect, denied the mother's petition and limited the mother to parental access with the child supervised by the YWCA … . Matter of King v Peters, 2018 NY Slip Op 06538, Second Dept 10-3-18

FAMILY LAW (PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT))/VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT))

,

NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST MOTHER AND FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD’S BRUISES NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the proof did not support a finding that either parent had neglected the child. Apparently mother's boyfriend had spanked the child and bruising appeared over time. Mother had no reason to suspect her boyfriend would mistreat the child and the parents could not be faulted for not recognizing the significance of the bruising:

… [T]here was no evidence that the mother had any prior knowledge of the boyfriend's alleged propensity to mistreat the children, and there was no evidence that he had done so on any prior occasion. In fact, Sophia's medical records did not contain any indication of prior neglect, maltreatment, or abuse of any kind. As the DCFS's  [Dutchess County Department of Community and Family Service's] own expert testified at the hearing, “[Sophia] was a healthy little girl and this seemed to have happened out of the blue.” Under these circumstances, the mother did not neglect the children by leaving them in the boyfriend's care … .

Likewise, the mother's failure to recognize the significance of the pattern of bruising—which the medical expert conceded would not be apparent to a layperson—cannot be faulted. Moreover, the record supports both parents' position that the decision to wait until Tuesday morning to bring Sophia to the hospital was an acceptable course of action in light of all the surrounding circumstances (see Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i]…) Indeed, the medical evidence showed that no treatment was required for the bruising, and that both parents had promptly sought treatment for the unrelated ankle injury.

As for the father, the undisputed evidence showed that the bruising occurred before Sophia was brought to the father's residence for a weekend visit. Further, the evidence established that it was the mother—not the father—who had left the children in the boyfriend's care. When the father took custody of Sophia on Saturday, she did not appear to be in pain, and after monitoring her throughout the weekend, the father, in consultation with the mother, agreed that Sophia should be seen by her pediatrician on Monday. Matter of Alana H. (Caitlin M.), 2018 NY Slip Op 06534, Second Dept 10-3-18

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST MOTHER AND FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD'S BRUISES NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST MOTHER AND FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD'S BRUISES NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST MOTHER AND FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD'S BRUISES NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))

,

PARTIES’ CONSENT TO A DNA TEST DID NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO WAS THE PRODUCT OF FRAUD, FAMILY COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT FRAUD WAS NOT ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the parties' consent to a DNA test did not eliminate the need for a hearing on the vacation of the the acknowledgment of paternity on the basis of fraud:

On November 22, 1998, an acknowledgment of paternity was executed with respect to the subject child, which contained the signatures of the mother and the father. Seventeen years later, the father filed the instant petition to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity on the ground of fraud, alleging, inter alia, “I do not believe that I have ever executed an acknowledgment” of paternity. Although the parties consented to a DNA test, the Family Court proceeded to conduct a hearing on the issue of whether the acknowledgment of paternity should be vacated on the ground of fraud. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court determined that the father failed to establish that the acknowledgment of paternity was fraudulently executed, and thus denied the father's petition. The father appeals.

Contrary to the father's contention, the parties' consent to a DNA test did not obviate the need for a hearing on the issue of whether the acknowledgment of paternity should be vacated on the ground of fraud. Where, as here, a party seeks to challenge an acknowledgment of paternity more than 60 days after its execution, “Family Court Act § 516-a(b) requires the court to conduct a hearing to determine the issues of fraud, duress, or a material mistake of fact [in the execution of the acknowledgment of paternity] before ordering a [genetic marker test]” … . Matter of Andrew E. v Angela N.S., 2018 NY Slip Op 06530, Second Dept 10-3-18

FAMILY LAW (PARTIES' CONSENT TO A DNA TEST DID NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO WAS THE PRODUCT OF FRAUD, FAMILY COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT FRAUD WAS NOT ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (FAMILY LAW, PATERNITY, PARTIES' CONSENT TO A DNA TEST DID NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO WAS THE PRODUCT OF FRAUD, FAMILY COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT FRAUD WAS NOT ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT))/PATERNITY (FRAUD, PARTIES' CONSENT TO A DNA TEST DID NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO WAS THE PRODUCT OF FRAUD, FAMILY COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT FRAUD WAS NOT ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT))/DNA (PATERNITY, PARTIES' CONSENT TO A DNA TEST DID NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO WAS THE PRODUCT OF FRAUD, FAMILY COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT FRAUD WAS NOT ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT))

VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED ON CHILDREN’S CONSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, modifying Family Court, determined visitation should not have been conditioned on the children's consent:

… [V]isitation should not have been conditioned on the children's (ages 9 and 11) consent and the parties' agreement. Visitation is a joint right of the noncustodial parent, here the adoptive mother, and of the children … . Although the children have a fractured relationship with their adoptive mother, a reasonable visitation schedule should have been set with her. At a minimum, supervised visitation would have alleviated the children's concerns. Not only is it untenable for these parties to set up their own visitation schedule, there is an insufficient showing that visitation would be detrimental to the children. “A court may not delegate its authority to determine visitation to either a parent or a child” … . Consequently, we remand this matter so that Family Court can, at a minimum, establish an appropriate supervised access schedule for the great-grandmother with the children and for the allocation of any other suitable resources to restore their relationship. Matter of Cornell S.J. v Altemease R.J., 2018 NY Slip Op 06320, First Dept 9-27-18

FAMILY LAW (VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED ON CHILDREN'S CONSENT (FIRST DEPT))/VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED ON CHILDREN'S CONSENT (FIRST DEPT))

OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES’ CHILD-MALTREATMENT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department found that the child maltreatment determination by the NYS Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) was not indicated:

OCFS's determination that child maltreatment by petitioners was “indicated” is not supported by substantial evidence… . Petitioners were in compliance with the recommendations of the child's pediatrician during the period in question, and there is no evidence that their failure to seek regular visits with a hematologist or to administer a daily dose of penicillin to the child as a prophylaxis either impaired or risked imminently impairing the child's physical condition… . Medical records show that the child's hospitalizations in 2014 and a year later in 2015 were the result of a viral infection, which would not have been prevented by his seeing a hematologist regularly or taking penicillin, an antibiotic. After the 2015 hospitalization, the child's treating physician ratified a course of treatment that did not include a daily antibiotic. Further, petitioners' decision not to further vaccinate the child did not violate the pediatrician's directive … . Matter of Charles v Poole, 2018 NY Slip Op 06185, First Dept 9-25-18

FAMILY LAW (OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES' CHILD-MALTREATMENT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))/CHILD MALTREATMENT (OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES' CHILD-MALTREATMENT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))/OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES (OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES' CHILD-MALTREATMENT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))

,

NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST A SPOUSE OR FORMER SPOUSE STEMMING FROM EVENTS DURING THE MARRIAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that, in New York, an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action cannot be brought against a spouse or former spouse regarding event occurring during marriage:

New York does not recognize a cause of action alleging the intentional infliction of emotional distress between spouses or former spouses based upon allegations of events that occurred during the marriage … . In any event, the conduct complained of does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous behavior required for a valid claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress … . Chen v Dehjung Deborah Wang, 2018 NY Slip Op 06076, Second Dept 9-19-18

FAMILY LAW (NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST A SPOUSE OR FORMER SPOUSE STEMMING FROM EVENTS DURING THE MARRIAGE (SECOND DEPT))/INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (FAMILY LAW, NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST A SPOUSE OR FORMER SPOUSE STEMMING FROM EVENTS DURING THE MARRIAGE (SECOND DEPT))

,

MOTHER’S PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP RE: SEEKING SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS FOR HER SON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PATERNITY HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother's guardianship petition should not have been dismissed simply because paternity had not been established. Mother was seeking special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) for her child:

… [M]other filed a petition … to be appointed the guardian of the subject child for the purpose of obtaining an order, inter alia, so as to enable the child to petition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for special immigrant juvenile status (hereinafter SIJS) … . In an order dated April 9, 2018, the Family Court dismissed the petition, without a hearing, on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action because the putative father's paternity had not been established. …

We disagree with the Family Court's determination to dismiss the petition, in which the mother sought to be appointed guardian of her child. A natural parent may be appointed guardian of his or her child (see Family Ct Act § 661[a]…), and the mere fact that paternity has not been established for the putative father does not preclude the mother's guardianship petition … .

Accordingly, since the Family Court dismissed the guardianship petition without conducting a hearing or considering the child's best interests, the matter must be remitted to the Family Court … for an expedited hearing and a new determination thereafter of the guardianship petition … . Matter of Olga L.G.M. (Santos T.F.), 2018 NY Slip Op 06093, Second Dept 9-19-18

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER'S PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP RE: SEEKING SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS FOR HER SON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PATERNITY HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (FAMILY LAW, MOTHER'S PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP RE: SEEKING SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS FOR HER SON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PATERNITY HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (FAMILY LAW, (MOTHER'S PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP RE: SEEKING SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS FOR HER SON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PATERNITY HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED (SECOND 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