In re Janiyah T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Janiyah T.

82 A.D.3d 1108, 918 N.Y.2d 885

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

DecidedMarch 22, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 1108 (In re Janiyah 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 Janiyah T., 82 A.D.3d 1108, 918 N.Y.2d 885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The Family Court’s determination that Lateek C. (hereinafter the appellant) neglected the child Janiyah T. was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. A “neglected child” is defined by the Family Court Act as one “whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of [the] parent ... to exercise a minimum degree of care ... in providing the [1109]*1109child with proper supervision or guardianship” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). The petitioner established, by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]), that the appellant’s conduct impaired the mental or emotional well-being of Janiyah T., or placed that child in imminent danger of such impairment (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f]; Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357 [2004]; Matter of Kevin M.H. [Kenneth H.], 76 AD3d 1015 [2010]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly found that the appellant neglected Janiyah T.

Further, the appellant’s neglect of Janiyah T. evinced a flawed understanding of his duties as a parent and demonstrated an impaired level of parental judgment sufficient to support the Family Court’s finding of derivative neglect of the child Kamiyah C. (see Matter of Lauryn H. [William A.], 73 AD3d 1175 [2010]; Matter of Grant W. [Raphael A.], 67 AD3d 922 [2009]).

In light of our determination, the appellant’s remaining contentions need not be addressed. Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

The Family Court’s determination that Lateek C. (hereinafter the appellant) neglected the child Janiyah T. was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. A “neglected child” is defined by the Family Court Act as one “whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of [the] parent ... to exercise a minimum degree of care ... in providing the [1109]*1109child with proper supervision or guardianship” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). The petitioner established, by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]), that the appellant’s conduct impaired the mental or emotional well-being of Janiyah T., or placed that child in imminent danger of such impairment (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f]; Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357 [2004]; Matter of Kevin M.H. [Kenneth H.], 76 AD3d 1015 [2010]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly found that the appellant neglected Janiyah T.

Further, the appellant’s neglect of Janiyah T. evinced a flawed understanding of his duties as a parent and demonstrated an impaired level of parental judgment sufficient to support the Family Court’s finding of derivative neglect of the child Kamiyah C. (see Matter of Lauryn H. [William A.], 73 AD3d 1175 [2010]; Matter of Grant W. [Raphael A.], 67 AD3d 922 [2009]).

In light of our determination, the appellant’s remaining contentions need not be addressed. Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 1108, 918 N.Y.2d 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-janiyah-t-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack