In re Baby Boy T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Baby Boy T.

105 A.D.2d 750, 481 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20865

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 13, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 750 (In re Baby Boy T.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Baby Boy T., 105 A.D.2d 750, 481 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a neglect proceeding, the mother appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Gallet, J.), dated March 15, 1983, which, after a dispositional hearing, adjudged the infant to be a neglected child within the meaning of article 10 of the Family Court Act and placed him with the respondent Commissioner of Social Services for a period not to exceed 18 months.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances, it was not reversible error for the trial court to refuse to qualify the caseworker of the bureau of child welfare as an opinion witness on the issue of whether the child would be in danger if he was returned to his mother.

Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of neglect based on the mother’s history of chronic undifferentiated schizophrenia and the likelihood of incidents of decompensation. Weinstein, J. P., Brown, Boyers and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a neglect proceeding, the mother appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Gallet, J.), dated March 15, 1983, which, after a dispositional hearing, adjudged the infant to be a neglected child within the meaning of article 10 of the Family Court Act and placed him with the respondent Commissioner of Social Services for a period not to exceed 18 months.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances, it was not reversible error for the trial court to refuse to qualify the caseworker of the bureau of child welfare as an opinion witness on the issue of whether the child would be in danger if he was returned to his mother.

Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of neglect based on the mother’s history of chronic undifferentiated schizophrenia and the likelihood of incidents of decompensation. Weinstein, J. P., Brown, Boyers and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 750, 481 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-baby-boy-t-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack