In re Megan L.G.H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Megan L.G.H.

89 A.D.3d 843, 932 N.Y.2d 372

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.3d 843 (In re Megan L.G.H.) 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 Megan L.G.H., 89 A.D.3d 843, 932 N.Y.2d 372 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The Family Court’s determination that the mother neglected the child was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. A “[n]eglected 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 child 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 mother’s conduct, which included being intoxicated and in possession of a knife and marijuana, placed the child in imminent danger of impairment of her physical condition (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 mother neglected the child. Rivera, J.E, Eng, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

The Family Court’s determination that the mother neglected the child was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. A “[n]eglected 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 child 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 mother’s conduct, which included being intoxicated and in possession of a knife and marijuana, placed the child in imminent danger of impairment of her physical condition (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 mother neglected the child. Rivera, J.E, Eng, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 843, 932 N.Y.2d 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-megan-lgh-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack