In re Mindy W.

93 A.D.3d 803, 939 N.Y.S.2d 885
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 20, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 93 A.D.3d 803 (In re Mindy W.) 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 Mindy W., 93 A.D.3d 803, 939 N.Y.S.2d 885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

[804]*804In five related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, which were transferred from the Family Court, Rockland County, to the Supreme Court, Rockland County, the father appeals from a fact-finding order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Christopher, J.), dated March 24, 2011, which, after a hearing, found that he sexually abused and neglected the child Mindy W, and derivatively neglected the children Goldy W, Joseph W, Ari W, and Yitzy W

Ordered that the fact-finding order dated March 24, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court’s determination that the appellant sexually abused and neglected his daughter Mindy W. is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Lauryn H. [William A.], 73 AD3d 1175 [2010]; Matter of Grant W. [Raphael A.], 67 AD3d 922 [2009]; Matter of Abigail S., 21 AD3d 380 [2005]; Matter of Heather S., 19 AD3d 606 [2005]).

Additionally, while a finding of sexual abuse of one child does not, by itself, establish that other children in the household have been derivatively neglected, here, the father’s sexual abuse of his daughter evinced a flawed understanding of his duties as a parent and impaired parental judgment sufficient to support the Family Court’s finding of derivative neglect of Goldy W., Joseph W., Ari W., and Yitzy W. (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]; Matter of Grant W. [Raphael A.], 67 AD3d at 922-923; Matter of Abigail S., 21 AD3d at 381).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Belen and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Dayannie I. M. (Roger I. M.)
138 A.D.3d 747 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 A.D.3d 803, 939 N.Y.S.2d 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mindy-w-nyappdiv-2012.