In re Natasha A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Natasha A.

99 A.D.2d 533, 471 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16748

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 A.D.2d 533 (In re Natasha A.) 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 Natasha A., 99 A.D.2d 533, 471 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 10 of the Family Court Act to declare Natasha A. a neglected child, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Jurow, J.), dated May 12, 1983, which dismissed the petition. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. On this record, we find an insufficient basis for reversing the Family Court’s determination that Natasha was not a neglected child within the meaning of subdivision (f) of section 1012 of the Family Court Act. While we recognize the complex circumstances of the case and the difficulties existing between the respondent mother and Natasha, the fact issues before the Family Court were sharply drawn and we are disinclined to question its judgment as to the credibility of the parties and the disposition of the questions before it. Nevertheless, although we cannot condition our affirmance on participation in therapy by both mother and daughter (see Matter of Dina V., 86 AD2d 875), we strongly recommend that both seek professional counseling to help resolve the difficulties between them. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 10 of the Family Court Act to declare Natasha A. a neglected child, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Jurow, J.), dated May 12, 1983, which dismissed the petition. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. On this record, we find an insufficient basis for reversing the Family Court’s determination that Natasha was not a neglected child within the meaning of subdivision (f) of section 1012 of the Family Court Act. While we recognize the complex circumstances of the case and the difficulties existing between the respondent mother and Natasha, the fact issues before the Family Court were sharply drawn and we are disinclined to question its judgment as to the credibility of the parties and the disposition of the questions before it. Nevertheless, although we cannot condition our affirmance on participation in therapy by both mother and daughter (see Matter of Dina V., 86 AD2d 875), we strongly recommend that both seek professional counseling to help resolve the difficulties between them. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 533, 471 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-natasha-a-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack