In re Wisdom M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Wisdom M.

32 A.D.3d 396, 820 N.Y.S.2d 605

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

DecidedAugust 1, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.3d 396 (In re Wisdom M.) 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 Wisdom M., 32 A.D.3d 396, 820 N.Y.S.2d 605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated January 31, 2005, which, after a hearing, found that she had derivatively neglected the subject children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A finding of derivative neglect is supported by the evidence indicating the appellant’s lack of understanding of her parental responsibilities (see Matter of John N., 19 AD3d 497, 499 [2005]; Matter of Rico D., 19 AD3d 416, 417 [2005]; Matter of Ramsay M., 17 AD3d 678, 679 [2005]; Matter of Rasheda S., 183 AD2d 770, 771 [1992]). After the appellant was previously found to have neglected two of her other children, she failed to follow a plan for the return of those children developed by the Administration for Children’s Services. Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the Family Court’s determination. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated January 31, 2005, which, after a hearing, found that she had derivatively neglected the subject children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A finding of derivative neglect is supported by the evidence indicating the appellant’s lack of understanding of her parental responsibilities (see Matter of John N., 19 AD3d 497, 499 [2005]; Matter of Rico D., 19 AD3d 416, 417 [2005]; Matter of Ramsay M., 17 AD3d 678, 679 [2005]; Matter of Rasheda S., 183 AD2d 770, 771 [1992]). After the appellant was previously found to have neglected two of her other children, she failed to follow a plan for the return of those children developed by the Administration for Children’s Services. Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the Family Court’s determination. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 396, 820 N.Y.S.2d 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-wisdom-m-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack