In re Kyle T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kyle T.

255 A.D.2d 945, 680 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12188

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 945 (In re Kyle 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 Kyle T., 255 A.D.2d 945, 680 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Contrary to respondent’s contention, petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent neglected her child (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; § 1046 [b] [i]), and Family Court’s finding of neglect is not against the weight of the evidence. Petitioner established that the child had 45 illegal absences during the 1995-1996 school year, and respondent admitted that she removed her child from school without providing alternate schooling. Such proof established educational neglect (see, Matter of Jovann B., 153 AD2d 858, 859; Matter of Christa H., 127 AD2d 997). The evidence further supports a finding of neglect based on respondent’s failure to provide proper supervision. Respondent left the child at St. Luke’s Mission, primarily a homeless shelter, for two weeks without leaving the staff an address or phone number where she could be reached. Furthermore, respondent never asked the staff of St. Luke’s Mission whether they would care for her child before she left. We conclude therefrom that the child’s physical, mental and emotional condition was in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of respondent’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of care for the child (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; Matter of Jessica R., 230 AD2d 108, 111; Matter of Rebecca W., 122 AD2d 582). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Mix, J. — Neglect.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Hayes and Boehm, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Contrary to respondent’s contention, petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent neglected her child (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; § 1046 [b] [i]), and Family Court’s finding of neglect is not against the weight of the evidence. Petitioner established that the child had 45 illegal absences during the 1995-1996 school year, and respondent admitted that she removed her child from school without providing alternate schooling. Such proof established educational neglect (see, Matter of Jovann B., 153 AD2d 858, 859; Matter of Christa H., 127 AD2d 997). The evidence further supports a finding of neglect based on respondent’s failure to provide proper supervision. Respondent left the child at St. Luke’s Mission, primarily a homeless shelter, for two weeks without leaving the staff an address or phone number where she could be reached. Furthermore, respondent never asked the staff of St. Luke’s Mission whether they would care for her child before she left. We conclude therefrom that the child’s physical, mental and emotional condition was in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of respondent’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of care for the child (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; Matter of Jessica R., 230 AD2d 108, 111; Matter of Rebecca W., 122 AD2d 582). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Mix, J. — Neglect.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Hayes and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 945, 680 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kyle-t-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack