You are here: / Family Law

RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT REMOVING CHILD FROM MOTHER’S CUSTODY, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the evidence did not support removing the child from the mother’s custody:

​

Although a prolonged separation between a parent and child may support a finding of extraordinary circumstances… , here, the limited record does not warrant a finding of extraordinary circumstances on this basis. The grandmother was the primary physical custodian for most of the younger child’s life, but there is no claim or evidence that the mother abdicated her responsibilities, and the record indicates that she had unsupervised parenting time with both children since 2004 and has been a joint custodian since at least December 2014 … . The history of neglect is relevant …, but the mother’s history — though tragic — was remote and there was no evidence or claim that she has failed to comply with the recommendations and obtain the treatment offered by DSS in recent times or that she has failed to remain involved in the children’s lives … . … While we acknowledge that Family Court had due cause for concern, absent extraordinary circumstances, we necessarily must find that the mother is entitled to retain custody of the younger child … . Although certainly not dispositive, it is important to recognize that the attorneys for the children have both supported the mother’s appeal.

Even were we to accept that the prior history established a basis for finding extraordinary circumstances, given that the grandmother allowed the children to reside with the mother since September 2015 and refused to resume her role as primary physical custodian, there has clearly been a change of circumstances … . The record otherwise shows that the mother has provided a stable home and appropriate medical care for the younger child, who has maintained excellent grades in school and participates in positive extracurricular activities, such as the boy scouts. From our reading of the Lincoln hearing, we do not get the impression that the younger child’s testimony was coached. As such, we would also conclude that the placement of physical custody with the mother is in the younger child’s best interests. Matter of Connie VV. v Cheryl XX., 2017 NY Slip Op 08913, Third Dept 12-21-17

 

FAMILY LAW (CUSTODY, RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT REMOVING CHILD FROM MOTHER’S CUSTODY, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT REMOVING CHILD FROM MOTHER’S CUSTODY, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT TERMINATION OF FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the proof did not support the termination of father’s parental rights:

​

An order terminating parental rights may be granted where the parent “abandoned [the] child for the period of six months immediately prior to the date on which the petition is filed in the court” … . Abandonment must be proven by clear and convincing evidence … .

Here, the agency failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that during the relevant period of time the father evinced an intent to forgo his parental rights and obligations … . The record demonstrates that once the father had sufficient reason to believe he might be the father, he took action to assert his paternity …  and sought to have contact with the child, filed petitions for custody, visited with the child on two occasions and attempted to visit on a third occasion, and brought the child snacks, toys, and clothes during the visits. In addition, the father spoke with the caseworker on the phone on multiple occasions, paid child support in the amount of $25 per month, and provided the caseworker with information about where he was living, who he was living with, and about a daycare where he would enroll the child. Under these circumstances, the Family Court should have denied the petition on the merits, and dismissed the proceeding … . Matter of Darrell J. D. J. (Kenneth R.), 2017 NY Slip Op 08826, Second Dept 12-2017

FAMILY LAW (PARENTAL RIGHTS, PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT TERMINATION OF FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS (SECOND DEPT))/PARENTAL RIGHTS (FAMILY LAW, PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT TERMINATION OF FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS (SECOND DEPT))/ABANDONMENT (PARENTAL RIGHTS, PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT TERMINATION OF FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS (SECOND DEPT))

FAMILY COURT MAINTAINED JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION AFTER THE FAMILY OFFENSES, WHICH LED TO THE TEMPORARY VIOLATION OF PROTECTION, HAD BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge dissent, determined that Family Court had jurisdiction to issue a final order of protection, based upon the violation of a temporary order of protection, after the underlying family offense petition (which led to the temporary order of protection) had been dismissed:

​

Petitioner Lisa T. filed a family offense petition against respondent King E.T., who is her husband and the father of her child. Petitioner requested and received a temporary order of protection, ex parte, at her first appearance in Family Court. The temporary order of protection directed respondent to refrain from all communications with petitioner except those relating to visitation arrangements and emergencies regarding the child. It is undisputed that respondent was served with, and had knowledge of, this order. Throughout a series of subsequent court appearances concerning the family offense petition — at which respondent was present with one exception — the temporary order of protection was extended. While the family offense proceeding remained pending, petitioner filed two violation petitions, later consolidated into a single petition, alleging that respondent had contacted her in contravention of the temporary orders of protection.

Family Court held a combined hearing on the family offense and consolidated violation petitions. … Family Court dismissed the family offense petition, but sustained the violation petition and issued a one-year final order of protection precluding respondent from, among other things, communicating with petitioner except as necessary to make arrangements for respondent’s visitation with the child.

Family Court Act §§ 846 and 846-a contain no language tying Family Court’s authority to impose specific penalties for the willful violation of a temporary order of protection to the court’s determination of whether or not the family offense petition, itself, should be sustained … . Significantly, there is no basis in the statutory text upon which we may draw any distinction between Family Court’s jurisdiction over violations of final orders of protection entered after a finding of a family offense, on the one hand, and violations of temporary orders of protection entered during the pendency of the family offense proceeding, on the other. Further, the statutory scheme makes clear that conduct constituting a violation of the order of protection need not necessarily constitute a separate family offense in order for the court to have jurisdiction over the violation. Indeed, section 846-a contains no such requirement. Matter of Lisa T. v King E.T., 2017 NY Slip Op 08800, CtApp 12-19-17

 

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT MAINTAINED JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION AFTER THE FAMILY OFFENSES, WHICH LED TO THE TEMPORARY VIOLATION OF PROTECTION, HAD BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP))/JURISDICTION  (FAMILY COURT MAINTAINED JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION AFTER THE FAMILY OFFENSES, WHICH LED TO THE TEMPORARY VIOLATION OF PROTECTION, HAD BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP))/ORDER OF PROTECTION (FAMILY COURT MAINTAINED JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION AFTER THE FAMILY OFFENSES, WHICH LED TO THE TEMPORARY VIOLATION OF PROTECTION, HAD BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP))/FAMILY OFFENSES (FAMILY COURT MAINTAINED JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION AFTER THE FAMILY OFFENSES, WHICH LED TO THE TEMPORARY VIOLATION OF PROTECTION, HAD BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP))

, ,

ALTHOUGH FATHER HAD THE RIGHT TO WAIVE COUNSEL AND PROCEED PRO SE IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT PROPERLY REFUSED HIS UNTIMELY REQUEST (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Family Court properly refused father’s untimely request  to proceed pro se in this termination of parental rights proceeding:

​

A parent in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights has the right to the assistance of counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262[a][iv]). A parent, however, may waive the right to counsel and opt for self-representation … . However, the right to self-representation is “not . . . unfettered” … . In order to invoke the right to defend pro se, “(1) the request [must be] unequivocal and timely asserted, (2) there [must be] a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, and (3) the defendant [must not have] engaged in conduct which would prevent the fair and orderly exposition of the issues”… . “An application is timely interposed when it is asserted before the trial commences'”… . “If the request is made thereafter, the right is severely constricted’ and the trial court must exercise its sound discretion and grant the request only under compelling circumstances”… .

Here, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the father’s request to represent himself since it was untimely, and the father proferred no compelling circumstances to justify the need to grant the application … . Matter of Sarah J. A. (Ramadan G. O.-A.), 2017 NY Slip Op 08661, Second Dept 12-13-17

 

FAMILY LAW (ALTHOUGH FATHER HAD THE RIGHT TO WAIVE COUNSEL AND PROCEED PRO SE IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT PROPERLY REFUSED HIS UNTIMELY REQUEST (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW , ALTHOUGH FATHER HAD THE RIGHT TO WAIVE COUNSEL AND PROCEED PRO SE IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT PROPERLY REFUSED HIS UNTIMELY REQUEST (SECOND DEPT))/PARENTAL RIGHTS (FAMILY LAW , ALTHOUGH FATHER HAD THE RIGHT TO WAIVE COUNSEL AND PROCEED PRO SE IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT PROPERLY REFUSED HIS UNTIMELY REQUEST (SECOND DEPT))/PRO SE (FAMILY LAW , ALTHOUGH FATHER HAD THE RIGHT TO WAIVE COUNSEL AND PROCEED PRO SE IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT PROPERLY REFUSED HIS UNTIMELY REQUEST (SECOND DEPT))

,

FAMILY COURT RELINQUISHED ITS FACT-FINDING FUNCTION TO THE BIASED FORENSIC EVALUATOR AND FAILED TO CONSIDER THE CUSTODY-RELOCATION MODIFICATION FACTORS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, modifying Family Court’s custody/relocation ruling, determined Family Court relinquished its fact-finding role by adopting the findings and recommendations of the forensic evaluator, in the face of the evaluator’s obvious bias in favor of the father. Family Court had granted sole custody to the father in North Carolina, without evaluating the custody/relocation-modification factors, despite the child’s life-long residence in New York and evidence of a supportive home life:

​

In its decision and order, Family Court recognized that the testimony given by the forensic evaluator “demonstrated[,] at times[,] a little less than neutral tone” and that it was apparent from her testimony that she was “challenged in her dealings” with the mother and her husband. Nevertheless, Family Court wholly adopted the forensic evaluator’s factual assertions, opinions, conclusions and recommendations, without any perceivable independent consideration given to the best interests of the child. In doing so, the court improperly delegated its fact-finding role and ultimate determination to the forensic evaluator… . We emphasize that “[t]he recommendations of court[-]appointed experts are but one factor to be considered” and, although entitled to some weight, such recommendations are not determinative and should not usurp the trial court’s independent impressions of the evidence and conclusions drawn from that evidence … . …

…[I]n granting the father sole legal and primary physical custody of the child, Family Court did not engage in an assessment of the relocation factors … . Had the court done so, it would have been apparent that the father’s proof was lacking in this regard. Neither the father nor the forensic evaluator offered demonstrable proof, such as photographs or a home study, as to the suitability of the father’s home. In commenting on the quality of the father’s home environment, the forensic evaluator relied solely on her assumptions and the self-serving representations made by the father. Matter of Montoya v Davis, 2017 NY Slip Op 08434, Third Dept 11-30-17

 

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT RELINQUISHED ITS FACT-FINDING FUNCTION TO THE BIASED FORENSIC EVALUATOR AND FAILED TO CONSIDER THE CUSTODY-RELOCATION MODIFICATION FACTS (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY-RELOCATION MODIFICATION, FAMILY COURT RELINQUISHED ITS FACT-FINDING FUNCTION TO THE BIASED FORENSIC EVALUATOR AND FAILED TO CONSIDER THE CUSTODY-RELOCATION MODIFICATION FACTS (THIRD DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY-RELOCATION MODIFICATION, FAMILY COURT RELINQUISHED ITS FACT-FINDING FUNCTION TO THE BIASED FORENSIC EVALUATOR AND FAILED TO CONSIDER THE CUSTODY-RELOCATION MODIFICATION FACTS (THIRD DEPT))

,

FATHER WHO WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE HOME AFTER CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS HAD A RIGHT TO AN EXPEDITED HEARING PURSUANT TO FAMILY COURT ACT 1028, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT AND LIKELY TO RECUR THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLIED TO PRECLUDE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive, full-fledged opinion by Justice Mastro (not fully summarized here), reversing Family Court, determined father, who had been excluded from the home because of sexual abuse allegations involving a child, was entitled to an expedited hearing pursuant to Family Court Act 1028. Although the father had been returned to the home by the time the appeal was heard, the court deemed the issue important and likely to recur thereby warranting an exception to the mootness doctrine:

​

Since the removal of a child from the family home and the exclusion of a parent from that same home require equal showings of imminent risk, and both result in similar infringements on the constitutionally protected parent-child relationship, we conclude that both trigger the same due process protections. Accordingly, in cases such as the one before us, where no “imminent risk” hearing is held before the parent is excluded from the household and the parent-child relationship is thereby severed, the holding of an expedited hearing within three court days pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028, upon the parent’s request, is mandated so that the question of reunification of the parent and child pending resolution of the proceeding may be determined. Due process requires the parent’s prompt, full, and fair opportunity to contest his or her exclusion from daily interaction with his or her children in this manner. Matter of Elizabeth C. (Omar C.), 2017 NY Slip Op 08370, Second Dept 11-29-17

 

FAMILY LAW (FATHER WHO WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE HOME AFTER CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS HAD A RIGHT TO AN EXPEDITED HEARING PURSUANT TO FAMILY COURT ACT 1028, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT AND LIKELY TO RECUR THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLIED TO PRECLUDE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, FAMILY LAW, FATHER WHO WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE HOME AFTER CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS HAD A RIGHT TO AN EXPEDITED HEARING PURSUANT TO FAMILY COURT ACT 1028, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT AND LIKELY TO RECUR THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLIED TO PRECLUDE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (APPEALS, FAMILY LAW, FATHER WHO WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE HOME AFTER CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS HAD A RIGHT TO AN EXPEDITED HEARING PURSUANT TO FAMILY COURT ACT 1028, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT AND LIKELY TO RECUR THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLIED TO PRECLUDE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))

COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY BY ALLOWING MOTHER TO CANCEL VISITATION IF FATHER WAS MORE THAN 15 MINUTES LATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have given mother the power to cancel father’s visit with a child if the father was more than 15 minutes late:

​

The Family Court erred in granting the mother the authority to unilaterally cancel the father’s visitation if he were more than 15 minutes late to pick up or drop off the child. This provision did not give the father an opportunity to judicially challenge the mother’s determination, or to present a legitimate reason for his tardiness before having a visit canceled … . Thus, the court improperly delegated its authority to the mother to determine when the child would visit with the father … . Matter of Michael R. v Aliesha H., 2017 NY Slip Op 08377, Second Dept 11-29-17

 

FAMILY LAW (VISITATION, COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY BY ALLOWING MOTHER TO CANCEL VISITATION IF FATHER WAS MORE THAN 15 MINUTES LATE (SECOND DEPT))/VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY BY ALLOWING MOTHER TO CANCEL VISITATION IF FATHER WAS MORE THAN 15 MINUTES LATE (SECOND DEPT))

,

EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE AWARD OF SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER, MATTER REMITTED FOR FURTHER INQUIRY ABOUT A LEVEL ONE SEX OFFENDER IN THE HOME, INFORMATION FIRST LEARNED IN A LINCOLN HEARING CANNOT BE RELIED UPON WITHOUT FURTHER INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court and remitting the case, determined the record did not support the awarding of sole custody to the maternal grandmother, in this appeal by the parents:

​

While we accord considerable deference to Family Court’s credibility assessments and factual findings on appeal, we conclude from our review of the trial testimony, without factoring in the Lincoln hearing, that petitioner failed to meet her threshold burden of establishing extraordinary circumstances. The record indicates that the mother and the father were only briefly incarcerated, during which time the children resided with the paternal grandmother — not the maternal grandmother. Upon their release, the mother and the father soon moved into the paternal grandmother’s home and the father obtained full-time employment — a sequence that does not establish an extended disruption of the mother and the father’s custody … . Moreover, while DSS made a finding of neglect, a DSS representative informed Family Court … that DSS did not have any ongoing child protective concerns. In doing so, DSS recognized that the father’s brother, a level one sex offender, lived in the paternal grandmother’s home. There is no evidence that the brother ever mistreated the children… . The father testified that he trusts his brother to be around the children, but would not and does not leave the children alone with him. The mother is not employed and is at home with the children.

As for the maternal grandmother, the record shows that she has never spent more than a couple of hours with the children and would only see them a few times each year. …

​

Family Court’s decision … raises an additional concern. Specifically, the court’s reference to “another male whose presence around children is questionable” — a person that the court then characterized as an undesirable — is not based on any testimony during the trial. As explained by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln (24 NY2d 270 [1969]), any new information adverse to the parents derived during a Lincoln hearing may not be considered by the court “without in some way checking on its accuracy during the course of the open hearing” … . Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that the matter must be remitted to Family Court for further proceedings to address the circumstances concerning the other male in the paternal grandmother’s home and to determine whether or not there has been a showing of extraordinary circumstances based on the totality of the evidence and, if so, what disposition is in the best interests of the children. Matter of Shaver v Bolster, 2017 NY Slip Op 08232, Third Dept 11-22-17

 

FAMILY LAW (CUSTODY, EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE AWARD OF SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER, MATTER REMITTED FOR FURTHER INQUIRY ABOUT A LEVEL ONE SEX OFFENDER IN THE HOME (THIRD DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE AWARD OF SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER, MATTER REMITTED FOR FURTHER INQUIRY ABOUT A LEVEL ONE SEX OFFENDER IN THE HOME (THIRD DEPT))/GRANDPARENTS (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE AWARD OF SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER, MATTER REMITTED FOR FURTHER INQUIRY ABOUT A LEVEL ONE SEX OFFENDER IN THE HOME (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY, EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE AWARD OF SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER, MATTER REMITTED FOR FURTHER INQUIRY ABOUT A LEVEL ONE SEX OFFENDER IN THE HOME (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, EVIDENCE FIRST LEARNED IN A LINCOLN HEARING MAY NOT BE RELIED UPON WITHOUT FURTHER INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT))/LINCOLN HEARING (FAMILY LAW, EVIDENCE FIRST LEARNED IN A LINCOLN HEARING MAY NOT BE RELIED UPON WITHOUT FURTHER INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT))

,

EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT CONCLUSION THAT MOTHER WAS OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE FATHER HAD INJURED THE CHILD, CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT FINDINGS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support child abuse and neglect findings against the respondent mother. Injuries to the child were caused by father. But the evidence did not support the finding that mother knew or should have known father had injured the child:

​

Based upon our review of the evidence in this record, we cannot conclude that respondent knew or should reasonably have known that she was placing the younger child in danger by leaving him in the care of his father while she went to work. Respondent consistently maintained, in her testimony and in her various statements to law enforcement and a Child Protective Services caseworker, that she did not know how the fractures had occurred, that she did not think the father had caused them and that, prior to observing redness and swelling in the child’s leg … , she had not noticed anything unusual or concerning with respect to the younger child. …

​

Nor do we find that respondent neglected the younger child by failing to seek medical care for the child when she observed redness and swelling in his leg … . Respondent testified that the child was not crying, that she thought the redness and swelling could be a reaction to vaccines that the child had a few days earlier and that she continually monitored the child’s condition that evening and throughout the next day. According to respondent, prior to leaving for work the following morning, she directed the father to monitor the child’s leg and let her know if it got worse. Respondent testified that she checked in with the father on her lunch break, scheduled an appointment with the child’s pediatrician for immediately after work and instructed the father to take the child to the doctor earlier if he determined that it could not wait. Under these circumstances, the record does not support a finding that respondent neglected the younger child by, as petitioner contends, failing to secure prompt medical attention … . Matter of Lucien HH. (Michelle PP.), 2017 NY Slip Op 08224, Third Dept 11-22-17

 

FAMILY LAW (CHILD ABUSE, NEGLECT, EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT CONCLUSION THAT MOTHER WAS OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE FATHER HAD INJURED THE CHILD, CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT FINDINGS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/CHILD ABUSE (FAMILY LAW, EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT CONCLUSION THAT MOTHER WAS OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE FATHER HAD INJURED THE CHILD, CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT FINDINGS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT CONCLUSION THAT MOTHER WAS OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE FATHER HAD INJURED THE CHILD, CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT FINDINGS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, CHILD ABUSE, NEGLECT, EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT CONCLUSION THAT MOTHER WAS OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE FATHER HAD INJURED THE CHILD, CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT FINDINGS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

,

FAMILY OFFENSES OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT THIRD NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF PHYSICAL INJURY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, found that the charged family offenses of aggravated harassment and assault third were not supported by proof of physical injury:

​

… [T]he petitioner failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the appellant committed the family offenses of aggravated harassment and assault in the third degree. Both of those family offenses require proof of physical injury, which is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” … . Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing failed to adequately demonstrate that the petitioner suffered a physical injury as a result of the conduct alleged in the petition … . Since the court’s factual determinations were not supported by the record, we vacate the finding that the appellant committed the family offenses of aggravated harassment and assault in the third degree … .. Inasmuch as the petitioner has not raised any alternative grounds for affirmance of the order of protection … , under the circumstances, we reverse the order of protection, deny the family offense petition, and dismiss the proceeding … . Matter of Stanislaus v Stanislaus, 2017 NY Slip Op 08274, Second Dept 11-22-17

 

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY OFFENSES OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT THIRD NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF PHYSICAL INJURY (SECOND DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (FAMILY OFFENSES OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT THIRD NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF PHYSICAL INJURY (SECOND DEPT))/AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT  (FAMILY OFFENSES OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT THIRD NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF PHYSICAL INJURY (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT THIRD DEGREE  (FAMILY OFFENSES OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT THIRD NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF PHYSICAL INJURY (SECOND DEPT))/FAMILY OFFENSES (FAMILY OFFENSES OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT THIRD NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF PHYSICAL INJURY (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