In re Makenzie C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Makenzie C.

113 A.D.3d 678, 978 N.Y.2d 697

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 15, 2014·Published

Opinion

Contrary to the sole contention raised by the mother on appeal, the finding of neglect against her was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, as the evidence adduced at the hearing established that she failed to exercise the minimum degree of care to prevent the imminent danger of the emotional and mental impairment of the subject children (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i]; 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Andrew B. [Deborah B.], 73 AD3d 1036, 1036-1037 [2010]; Matter of Daniel D., 57 AD3d 444, 444 [2008]; Matter of Faith J., 47 AD3d 630, 630 [2008]; Matter of My’Kia A., 8 AD3d 481, 482 [2004]; Matter of Caress S., 250 AD2d 490, 490 [1998]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the sole contention raised by the mother on appeal, the finding of neglect against her was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, as the evidence adduced at the hearing established that she failed to exercise the minimum degree of care to prevent the imminent danger of the emotional and mental impairment of the subject children (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i]; 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Andrew B. [Deborah B.], 73 AD3d 1036, 1036-1037 [2010]; Matter of Daniel D., 57 AD3d 444, 444 [2008]; Matter of Faith J., 47 AD3d 630, 630 [2008]; Matter of My’Kia A., 8 AD3d 481, 482 [2004]; Matter of Caress S., 250 AD2d 490, 490 [1998]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.

In re Makenzie C., 113 A.D.3d 678, 978 N.Y.2d 697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

113 A.D.3d 678 (In re Makenzie C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related