In re Brittany B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Brittany B.

275 A.D.2d 986, 715 N.Y.S.2d 197, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9762

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 29, 2000·Published

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner met its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent neglected her daughter. The evidence at the fact-finding hearing established that respondent, upon learning that her daughter had been sexually abused by her fiancé, refused to believe her daughter and declined her fiancé’s offer to vacate the home. In addition, petitioner presented expert proof that the daughter’s emotional condition has been impaired as the result of respondent’s actions (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]). Thus, petitioner established that the daughter has been impaired as the result of the failure of respondent to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing her daughter with proper supervision (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Rita XX., 249 AD2d 850, 851; see also, Matter of Jennifer G. [appeal No. 2], 261 AD2d 823). (Appeal from Order of Chautauqua County Family Court, Hartley, J. — Neglect.) Present — ¡Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Kehoe and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner met its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent neglected her daughter. The evidence at the fact-finding hearing established that respondent, upon learning that her daughter had been sexually abused by her fiancé, refused to believe her daughter and declined her fiancé’s offer to vacate the home. In addition, petitioner presented expert proof that the daughter’s emotional condition has been impaired as the result of respondent’s actions (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]). Thus, petitioner established that the daughter has been impaired as the result of the failure of respondent to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing her daughter with proper supervision (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Rita XX., 249 AD2d 850, 851; see also, Matter of Jennifer G. [appeal No. 2], 261 AD2d 823). (Appeal from Order of Chautauqua County Family Court, Hartley, J. — Neglect.) Present — ¡Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Kehoe and Balio, JJ.

In re Brittany B., 275 A.D.2d 986, 715 N.Y.S.2d 197, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

275 A.D.2d 986 (In re Brittany B.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related