Matter of Adam Christopher S. (Deborah D.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Adam Christopher S. (Deborah D.)

120 A.D.3d 1110, 992 N.Y.S.2d 404

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2014

Docket12972 12971

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1110 (Matter of Adam Christopher S. (Deborah D.)) 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

Matter of Adam Christopher S. (Deborah D.), 120 A.D.3d 1110, 992 N.Y.S.2d 404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about October 2, 2013, to the extent it brings up for review a fact-finding order, same court and Judge, entered on or about October 2, 2013, which found that respondent neglected the child Adam Christopher S. and derivatively neglected the other children, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from fact-finding order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.

The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, which demonstrates that respondent inflicted excessive corporal punishment on her son Adam, then eight years old. On one occasion she slapped Adam in the face, leaving red marks, and nine days later she beat him over the course of 10 hours, using a belt on his legs and attempting to pry his mouth open while trying to force him to eat (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Joshua R., 47 AD3d 465 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied, 11 NY3d 703 [2008]). That the physical injuries sustained by her son did not warrant medical attention does not preclude a finding of neglect against respondent based on excessive corporal punishment (see Matter of Joseph C. [Anthony C.], 88 AD3d 478 [1st Dept 2011]). Further, the court found that respondent showed no remorse or insight into the impact of her conduct on her children.

By establishing that respondent neglected her son by using excessive corporal punishment on him, petitioner demonstrated respondent’s derivative neglect of the other three children (Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]; Matter of Jason G. [Pamela G.], 3 AD3d 340 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 702 [2004]). Respondent’s behavior demonstrated a level of parental judgment so impaired *1111 as to create a substantial risk of harm to any child in her care (see Matter of Vincent M., 193 AD2d 398, 404 [1st Dept 1993]).

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about October 2, 2013, to the extent it brings up for review a fact-finding order, same court and Judge, entered on or about October 2, 2013, which found that respondent neglected the child Adam Christopher S. and derivatively neglected the other children, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from fact-finding order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.

The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, which demonstrates that respondent inflicted excessive corporal punishment on her son Adam, then eight years old. On one occasion she slapped Adam in the face, leaving red marks, and nine days later she beat him over the course of 10 hours, using a belt on his legs and attempting to pry his mouth open while trying to force him to eat (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Joshua R., 47 AD3d 465 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied, 11 NY3d 703 [2008]). That the physical injuries sustained by her son did not warrant medical attention does not preclude a finding of neglect against respondent based on excessive corporal punishment (see Matter of Joseph C. [Anthony C.], 88 AD3d 478 [1st Dept 2011]). Further, the court found that respondent showed no remorse or insight into the impact of her conduct on her children.

By establishing that respondent neglected her son by using excessive corporal punishment on him, petitioner demonstrated respondent’s derivative neglect of the other three children (Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]; Matter of Jason G. [Pamela G.], 3 AD3d 340 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 702 [2004]). Respondent’s behavior demonstrated a level of parental judgment so impaired *1111 as to create a substantial risk of harm to any child in her care (see Matter of Vincent M., 193 AD2d 398, 404 [1st Dept 1993]).

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 1110, 992 N.Y.S.2d 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-adam-christopher-s-deborah-d-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack