Matter of Madison M. (Jennifer P.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Madison M. (Jennifer P.)

140 A.D.3d 631, 33 N.Y.S.3d 268

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

DecidedJune 28, 2016

Docket1600

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 631 (Matter of Madison M. (Jennifer P.)) 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 Madison M. (Jennifer P.), 140 A.D.3d 631, 33 N.Y.S.3d 268 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Valerie Pels, J.), entered on or about February 10, 2015, which, after a hearing, found that respondent mother had neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner agency established by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother had neglected the child by misusing a drug or drugs (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). The mother had a prior neglect finding against her with respect to another child based on her misuse of drugs; was arrested for drug use within nine months of her pregnancy with the subject child; initially refused to submit herself or the child for drug screening when the child was born, even though the mother appeared to be under the influence of drugs; was present at crack houses with the child when the child was only 18 days old; and was arrested for possession of crack cocaine and a crack pipe after a detective observed her at the crack houses. This evidence, and her behavior of leaving the newborn child in the lobby of one of the crack houses when she saw the detective, evidenced “a substantial impairment of judgment . . . or a substantial manifestation of irrationality” as a result of repeated misuse of drugs sufficient to trigger the statutory presumption of neglect, *632 which she failed to rebut (Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [iii]; see Matter of Nasiim W. [Keala M.], 88 AD3d 452, 453-454 [1st Dept 2011]).

The mother failed to preserve for appellate review her contention that Family Court had improperly granted the attorney for the child’s request to conform the pleadings to the proof (see Matter of Richard S. [Lacey P.], 130 AD3d 630, 632-633 [2d Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 906 [2015]), and, in any event, her argument is unavailing (id.).

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

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Valerie Pels, J.), entered on or about February 10, 2015, which, after a hearing, found that respondent mother had neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner agency established by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother had neglected the child by misusing a drug or drugs (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). The mother had a prior neglect finding against her with respect to another child based on her misuse of drugs; was arrested for drug use within nine months of her pregnancy with the subject child; initially refused to submit herself or the child for drug screening when the child was born, even though the mother appeared to be under the influence of drugs; was present at crack houses with the child when the child was only 18 days old; and was arrested for possession of crack cocaine and a crack pipe after a detective observed her at the crack houses. This evidence, and her behavior of leaving the newborn child in the lobby of one of the crack houses when she saw the detective, evidenced “a substantial impairment of judgment . . . or a substantial manifestation of irrationality” as a result of repeated misuse of drugs sufficient to trigger the statutory presumption of neglect, *632 which she failed to rebut (Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [iii]; see Matter of Nasiim W. [Keala M.], 88 AD3d 452, 453-454 [1st Dept 2011]).

The mother failed to preserve for appellate review her contention that Family Court had improperly granted the attorney for the child’s request to conform the pleadings to the proof (see Matter of Richard S. [Lacey P.], 130 AD3d 630, 632-633 [2d Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 906 [2015]), and, in any event, her argument is unavailing (id.).

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

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 631, 33 N.Y.S.3d 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-madison-m-jennifer-p-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack