Matter of Girl A. (Veronica A.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Girl A. (Veronica A.)

132 A.D.3d 419, 17 N.Y.S.3d 676

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

DecidedOctober 6, 2015

Docket15769 15768

StatusPublished

This text of 132 A.D.3d 419 (Matter of Girl A. (Veronica 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

Matter of Girl A. (Veronica A.), 132 A.D.3d 419, 17 N.Y.S.3d 676 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J.), entered on or about March 6, 2014, to the extent it brings up for review an order, same court and Judge, entered on or about March 5, 2014, which granted petitioner agency’s motion for summary judgment finding that respondent mother had derivatively neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the March 5, 2004 order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.

The agency made a prima facie showing of derivative neglect as to the subject child based on prior orders, issued nine months before the commencement of this proceeding, finding that the mother and father had neglected two older children who suffered unexplained, serious injuries while in their care (see Matter of Camarrie B. [Maria R.], 107 AD3d 409, 409 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Matthew O. [Kenneth O.], 103 AD3d 67, 76 [1st Dept 2012]). Moreover, the most recent permanency hearing order found that continued placement of the subject child’s siblings was in their best interests. In addition, following an evidentiary hearing on the agency’s application to suspend unsupervised visitation, the Family Court found that *420 the mother not only had failed to take steps towards distancing herself from the abusive father, but had continued to see him and allowed him to have unsupervised access to the baby in violation of a protective order.

In opposition, the mother failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether conditions had changed so that she had gained sufficient insight and self discipline to safely parent her child (Matter of Jayden C. [Luisanny A.], 126 AD3d 433, 434 [1st Dept 2015]).

We have considered the mother’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, 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 (Douglas E. Hoffman, J.), entered on or about March 6, 2014, to the extent it brings up for review an order, same court and Judge, entered on or about March 5, 2014, which granted petitioner agency’s motion for summary judgment finding that respondent mother had derivatively neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the March 5, 2004 order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.

The agency made a prima facie showing of derivative neglect as to the subject child based on prior orders, issued nine months before the commencement of this proceeding, finding that the mother and father had neglected two older children who suffered unexplained, serious injuries while in their care (see Matter of Camarrie B. [Maria R.], 107 AD3d 409, 409 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Matthew O. [Kenneth O.], 103 AD3d 67, 76 [1st Dept 2012]). Moreover, the most recent permanency hearing order found that continued placement of the subject child’s siblings was in their best interests. In addition, following an evidentiary hearing on the agency’s application to suspend unsupervised visitation, the Family Court found that *420 the mother not only had failed to take steps towards distancing herself from the abusive father, but had continued to see him and allowed him to have unsupervised access to the baby in violation of a protective order.

In opposition, the mother failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether conditions had changed so that she had gained sufficient insight and self discipline to safely parent her child (Matter of Jayden C. [Luisanny A.], 126 AD3d 433, 434 [1st Dept 2015]).

We have considered the mother’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 419, 17 N.Y.S.3d 676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-girl-a-veronica-a-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack