In re Kenneth L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kenneth L.

209 A.D.2d 352, 618 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11788

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 352 (In re Kenneth L.) 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 Kenneth L., 209 A.D.2d 352, 618 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered March 7, 1994, which paroled the subject children to their natural mother, respondent Teewana L., with Child Welfare Administration supervision, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The application by respondent mother for return of the [353]*353children in this case pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 was properly granted. The children were removed from the mother’s home when one of the children, Christina, was found to have a hand shaped bruise on the side of her face, which the child stated was caused by the mother’s paramour, respondent Keith E. Family Court Act § 1028 (a) provides that the application of a parent seeking return of a child temporarily removed under such circumstances "shall” be granted after a hearing, "unless it finds that the return presents an imminent risk to the child’s life or health.” The evidence presented by the agency did not demonstrate that the respondent mother posed any imminent risk to the children, and the Family Court was well within its statutory prerogative in determining that the removal of Keith E. from the home by way of protective order adequately removed any potential threat to their safety and well being. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered March 7, 1994, which paroled the subject children to their natural mother, respondent Teewana L., with Child Welfare Administration supervision, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The application by respondent mother for return of the [353]*353children in this case pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 was properly granted. The children were removed from the mother’s home when one of the children, Christina, was found to have a hand shaped bruise on the side of her face, which the child stated was caused by the mother’s paramour, respondent Keith E. Family Court Act § 1028 (a) provides that the application of a parent seeking return of a child temporarily removed under such circumstances "shall” be granted after a hearing, "unless it finds that the return presents an imminent risk to the child’s life or health.” The evidence presented by the agency did not demonstrate that the respondent mother posed any imminent risk to the children, and the Family Court was well within its statutory prerogative in determining that the removal of Keith E. from the home by way of protective order adequately removed any potential threat to their safety and well being. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 352, 618 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kenneth-l-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack