Matter of Gabrielle N. (Jacqueline T.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Gabrielle N. (Jacqueline T.)

139 A.D.3d 504, 29 N.Y.S.3d 810

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

DecidedMay 12, 2016

Docket903 902

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 504 (Matter of Gabrielle N. (Jacqueline T.)) 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 Gabrielle N. (Jacqueline T.), 139 A.D.3d 504, 29 N.Y.S.3d 810 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J.), entered on or about July 1, 2014, to the extent it brings up for review a fact-finding order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 15, 2013, which found that respondent parents neglected their special needs daughter and derivatively neglected their younger daughter, held in abeyance, and the matter remanded to Family Court for a reconstruction hearing with respect to the missing medical records admitted into evidence as exhibits 1 to 4. Appeal *505 from order of disposition otherwise dismissed, without costs, as moot.

At issue on appeal is whether a preponderance of the evidence supports the court’s finding that the parents neglected the special needs child by interfering with her medical care, and delaying necessary treatment to the point where petitioner Administration for Children’s Services sought, and was granted, a medical override of the parents’ refusal to consent to surgery (see Matter of Jaquan F. [Alexis F.], 120 AD3d 1113, 1114 [1st Dept 2014]), and whether the finding of derivative neglect was also appropriate inasmuch as the parents’ behavior demonstrated such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in their care (see Matter of Joshua R., 47 AD3d 465, 466 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 703 [2008]). However, these issues cannot be resolved on the record provided to this Court since the medical records from the four health facilities that treated the special needs child, received into evidence in Family Court, were not submitted to this Court as part of the original record and are missing (see Matter of Garner v Garner, 88 AD3d 708, 709 [2d Dept 2011]; Matter of Hall v Ladson, 18 AD3d 753, 754 [2d Dept 2005]). Accordingly, the matter should be remanded for a reconstruction hearing as indicated.

The father’s appeal from disposition is moot, since the dispositional order has expired and been superseded by subsequent permanency orders (see Matter of Skye C. [Monica S.], 127 AD3d 603, 604 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Appeal from order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J.), entered on or about July 1, 2014, to the extent it brings up for review a fact-finding order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 15, 2013, which found that respondent parents neglected their special needs daughter and derivatively neglected their younger daughter, held in abeyance, and the matter remanded to Family Court for a reconstruction hearing with respect to the missing medical records admitted into evidence as exhibits 1 to 4. Appeal *505 from order of disposition otherwise dismissed, without costs, as moot.

At issue on appeal is whether a preponderance of the evidence supports the court’s finding that the parents neglected the special needs child by interfering with her medical care, and delaying necessary treatment to the point where petitioner Administration for Children’s Services sought, and was granted, a medical override of the parents’ refusal to consent to surgery (see Matter of Jaquan F. [Alexis F.], 120 AD3d 1113, 1114 [1st Dept 2014]), and whether the finding of derivative neglect was also appropriate inasmuch as the parents’ behavior demonstrated such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in their care (see Matter of Joshua R., 47 AD3d 465, 466 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 703 [2008]). However, these issues cannot be resolved on the record provided to this Court since the medical records from the four health facilities that treated the special needs child, received into evidence in Family Court, were not submitted to this Court as part of the original record and are missing (see Matter of Garner v Garner, 88 AD3d 708, 709 [2d Dept 2011]; Matter of Hall v Ladson, 18 AD3d 753, 754 [2d Dept 2005]). Accordingly, the matter should be remanded for a reconstruction hearing as indicated.

The father’s appeal from disposition is moot, since the dispositional order has expired and been superseded by subsequent permanency orders (see Matter of Skye C. [Monica S.], 127 AD3d 603, 604 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 504, 29 N.Y.S.3d 810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-gabrielle-n-jacqueline-t-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack