In re Deanna R.G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Deanna R.G.

83 A.D.3d 1064, 921 N.Y.S.2d 557

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

DecidedApril 26, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 83 A.D.3d 1064 (In re Deanna R.G.) 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 Deanna R.G., 83 A.D.3d 1064, 921 N.Y.S.2d 557 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated May 7, 2010, which, after a hearing, found that she neglected the subject child.

Ordered that the fact-finding order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the petitioner met its burden of establishing educational and medical neglect by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]; § 1046 [b]; Matter of Eric C. [Barbara C.], 79 AD3d 1037, 1037 [2010]; Matter of Ijeoma O., 271 AD2d 691, 692 [2000]). The petitioner submitted unrebutted evidence of excessive school absences, and the mother failed to offer a reasonable justification for the absences (see Matter of Eric C. [Barbara C.], 79 AD3d at 1037; Matter of Annalize P. [Angie D.], 78 AD3d 413, 414 [2010]; Matter of Evan F., 48 AD3d 811, 811 [2008]). Moreover, the record establishes that although the mother was aware that her daughter had emotional problems and was in need of professional mental health care, she failed to obtain such care [1065]*1065for her (see Matter of Ijeoma O., 271 AD2d at 692; see also Matter of Perry S., 22 AD3d 234 [2005]). Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated May 7, 2010, which, after a hearing, found that she neglected the subject child.

Ordered that the fact-finding order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the petitioner met its burden of establishing educational and medical neglect by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]; § 1046 [b]; Matter of Eric C. [Barbara C.], 79 AD3d 1037, 1037 [2010]; Matter of Ijeoma O., 271 AD2d 691, 692 [2000]). The petitioner submitted unrebutted evidence of excessive school absences, and the mother failed to offer a reasonable justification for the absences (see Matter of Eric C. [Barbara C.], 79 AD3d at 1037; Matter of Annalize P. [Angie D.], 78 AD3d 413, 414 [2010]; Matter of Evan F., 48 AD3d 811, 811 [2008]). Moreover, the record establishes that although the mother was aware that her daughter had emotional problems and was in need of professional mental health care, she failed to obtain such care [1065]*1065for her (see Matter of Ijeoma O., 271 AD2d at 692; see also Matter of Perry S., 22 AD3d 234 [2005]). Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 1064, 921 N.Y.S.2d 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-deanna-rg-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack