In re Justin A.

94 A.D.3d 575, 942 N.Y.S.2d 347
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 17, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 94 A.D.3d 575 (In re Justin A.) 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 Justin A., 94 A.D.3d 575, 942 N.Y.S.2d 347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J.), entered on or about March 8, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, after a fact-finding hearing, found that respondent father neglected two of the subject children and derivatively neglected the third child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding that the father neglected the children Andrew and Yelissa was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f]; § 1046). The record shows that the father failed to make sure that the children were properly fed, which led to a diagnosis of failure to thrive. The father also failed to provide the children with proper medical treatment for the condition (see Matter of Joshua Hezekiah B. [Edgar B.], 77 AD3d 441 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 716 [2010]). Moreover, the father unreasonably allowed the mother to be solely responsible for tending to the children’s complex medical needs, although a previous finding of neglect had been entered against her for failing to properly administer prescribed medication to Andrew. The fact that Andrew gained a significant amount of weight when he was hospitalized for treatment of injuries he accidentally sustained clearly indicated that he was not receiving proper nourishment at home (see Matter of Kayla C., 19 AD3d 692 [2005]).

The acts committed by the father demonstrate an impairment of judgment sufficient to support the derivative finding of neglect as to the third child, Justin (see e.g. Matter of Brianna R. [Marisol G.], 78 AD3d 437 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 702 [2011]).

We have considered the father’s remaining contentions, and find then unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.E, Catterson, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Cohen D. (Chantal D.)
2018 NY Slip Op 111 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
In re Josephine BB.
114 A.D.3d 1096 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
In re Mary YY.
108 A.D.3d 803 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 A.D.3d 575, 942 N.Y.S.2d 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-justin-a-nyappdiv-2012.