In re Nhyashanti A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Nhyashanti A.

102 A.D.3d 470, 956 N.Y.S.2d 887

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 102 A.D.3d 470 (In re Nhyashanti 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 Nhyashanti A., 102 A.D.3d 470, 956 N.Y.S.2d 887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of fact-finding, Family Court, Bronx County (liana Gruebel, J.), entered on or about September 20, 2011, which, following a fact-finding hearing, determined that respondent mother had derivatively neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner agency made a prima facie showing of derivative neglect as to the subject child based on the prior findings of neglect against respondent with respect to her older children, including a finding of neglect just 10 days before the subject child’s birth (see Matter of Cruz, 121 AD2d 901, 902-903 [1st Dept 1986]).

The derivative finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]). The prior findings of neglect were sufficiently close in time to the derivative proceeding to support the conclusion that respondent’s parental judgment remained impaired (see Cruz, 121 AD2d at 902-903). Further, respondent testified that she had not completed anger management services or a mental health evaluation, and that she had not been compliant with her mental health treatment for a year before the filing of the petition in the derivative proceeding. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order of fact-finding, Family Court, Bronx County (liana Gruebel, J.), entered on or about September 20, 2011, which, following a fact-finding hearing, determined that respondent mother had derivatively neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner agency made a prima facie showing of derivative neglect as to the subject child based on the prior findings of neglect against respondent with respect to her older children, including a finding of neglect just 10 days before the subject child’s birth (see Matter of Cruz, 121 AD2d 901, 902-903 [1st Dept 1986]).

The derivative finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]). The prior findings of neglect were sufficiently close in time to the derivative proceeding to support the conclusion that respondent’s parental judgment remained impaired (see Cruz, 121 AD2d at 902-903). Further, respondent testified that she had not completed anger management services or a mental health evaluation, and that she had not been compliant with her mental health treatment for a year before the filing of the petition in the derivative proceeding. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A.D.3d 470, 956 N.Y.S.2d 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nhyashanti-a-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack