Child Abuse & Neglect

Published on: October 5, 2024

Court terminated the father’s parental rights, citing mental illness and permanent neglect. In re William L., 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 3838 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involved the termination of a father’s parental rights to his three children, William, Hailey, and Amanda, under Social Services Law § 384-b. The Family Court found that the father was unable to care for the children due to mental illness and had permanently neglected them. The court transferred custody and guardianship of two of the children to the Commissioner of Social Services and the foster mother for adoption. The father appealed the decision, and the Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s findings and orders.

Background Facts

The father had three children: William, born in 2004; Hailey, born in 2005; and Amanda, born in 2011. In 2009, William and Hailey were removed from their parents’ care and placed with their paternal grandmother due to concerns about their safety. Amanda, born later, was placed with the grandmother in 2012. During this time, the grandmother allowed the father to have unsupervised contact with the children in violation of existing orders of protection. This led to the removal of all three children from the grandmother’s custody in 2012, and they were placed with a foster mother.

Published on: October 2, 2024

Appellate Division found that injuries are not required to meet criminal definition of serious physical injury to be considered child abuse. Admin. for Children’s Servs. v. Ferida B. (In re Jonah B.), 85 N.Y.S.3d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involved three related child abuse and neglect proceedings under the Family Court Act, Article 10, in Queens County, New York. The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) filed allegations against the parents and maternal grandmother of a child named Talia. The Family Court, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed allegations of abuse and derivative abuse. ACS and the children appealed, arguing that the court erred in not finding abuse.

Background Facts

In April 2014, ACS began two child abuse and neglect proceedings against the mother, father, maternal grandmother, and paternal grandmother. The allegations centered on the care of the child Talia, who was four months old at the time. Talia was taken to the hospital on April 7, 2014, where doctors diagnosed her with multiple injuries, including rib fractures, fractures in both legs, and a fracture in her right arm. The injuries occurred between her birth on December 5, 2013, and April 7, 2014. ACS claimed these injuries were not accidental and were inflicted while Talia was in the care of her parents and grandmothers. ACS also argued that Jonah, Talia’s sibling, was derivatively abused.

Published on: October 1, 2024

Mother found to have abused child, even though multiple caregivers were present around the time of the injuries. Admin. for Children’s Servs. v. Allison B. (In re Dall. P.), 185 A.D.3d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

When it comes to abuse of children, the courts look at not only the person who was accursed of inflicting the abuse, but also any individuals who were caring for the child around the time that the abuse occurred. Admin. for Children’s Servs. v. Allison B. (In re Dall. P.), 185 A.D.3d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020) involved serious injuries to a two-year-old child and raised questions about the responsibilities and actions of caregivers. The court had to determine whether the mother could be held responsible for her child’s injuries based on the evidence presented during the fact-finding hearing.

Background Facts

The case began when the mother and her boyfriend brought the mother’s two-year-old son, Dallas P., to Jamaica Hospital on August 22, 2015. Dallas had a ruptured bowel that required emergency surgery. The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) initiated legal proceedings under Family Court Act Article 10, alleging that the mother had abused the child. During the fact-finding hearing, the court heard from several witnesses, including medical professionals. Dr. Edmond Kessler, the treating pediatric surgeon, testified that faint bruises were observed on the child and that the only reasonable explanation for the injury was a single, high-velocity traumatic event. Dr. Kessler also indicated that the injury occurred within 6 to 24 hours before Dallas was admitted to the hospital.

Published on: September 6, 2024

Father found to have neglected his children due to them witnessing his abuse of their mother. In re Jayline J., 156 A.D.3d 701, 64 N.Y.S.3d 916 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

by Stephen Bilkis

Domestic violence cases commonly involve violence between intimate partners, with one partner assaulting the other. While one victim is always the person who has been directly physically abused, other victims can include any children who witness the abuse. In the case of In re Jayline J., 156 A.D.3d 701, 64 N.Y.S.3d 916 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017), the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) initiated a neglect proceeding in Family Court, Queens County, against a father, alleging that he had neglected his child by exposing her to domestic violence. After a fact-finding hearing, the court ruled that the father had indeed neglected the child. The father appealed the ruling, disputing the findings. This case presents an examination of the standard for proving neglect under New York law and how domestic violence can impact a child’s well-being.

Background Facts

In March 2015, ACS brought an action against the father, accusing him of neglect. According to the allegations, the father subjected the child’s mother to domestic violence in the presence of the child. Under New York law, exposing a child to domestic violence can constitute neglect if it leads to harm or imminent risk of harm to the child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition.

Published on: July 3, 2024

In re Isabela P. (Anonymous) No. 2020-01085 (N.Y. App. Div. Jun. 9, 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

A determination of neglect signifies a legal finding that a parent or caretaker has failed to provide adequate care, supervision, or guardianship for a child. It means that the court has concluded, based on the evidence presented, that the child’s physical, mental, or emotional well-being has been impaired or is at risk of impairment due to the parent or caretaker’s actions or omissions. This determination is typically made after a thorough assessment of the circumstances surrounding the child’s care and any evidence of harm or potential harm to the child.

This case revolves around a father’s appeal from an order of disposition issued by the Family Court, Queens County, dated September 4, 2019. The order, made after a fact-finding and dispositional hearing, found that the father neglected the subject child and released the child to the custody of the nonrespondent mother. The father contests this decision, prompting an appeal.

Background Facts

Published on: June 19, 2024

Finding of sexual abuse by father supported by evidence; requirement of supervised visits upheld. Admin. for Children’s Servs. v. Victor P. (In re Victoria P.), 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 7169 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

by Stephen Bilkis

Supervised visitation visits refer to a type of visitation where a third party, such as a social worker or designated family member, is present during the parent’s time with the child. This is done to ensure the child’s safety and well-being while maintaining a controlled environment for the parent-child interaction. The supervising party observes the visits to ensure no inappropriate behavior occurs, and the visits are typically held in a neutral location. In the case of Admin. for Children’s Servs. v. Victor P. (In re Victoria P.), 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 7169 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014) the father, Victor P., appealed a Family Court decision requiring him to complete a sex offender treatment program and limiting his visitation rights to supervised visits with his children, based on findings of sexual abuse and derivative neglect.

Background Facts

This case stemmed from allegations of sexual abuse against Victor P., the father of Elizabeth P. During a fact-finding hearing, the court found that Victor P. had abused Elizabeth P. and derivatively neglected his other children: Victoria P., Wilma P., and Ivan G. Following these findings, the court issued a dispositional order requiring Victor P. to complete a sex offender treatment program and limited his visitation with his children to supervised visits, at the discretion of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS).

Published on: June 12, 2024

Parents sued school district over sexual abuse of disabled daughter by bus attendant. K.A. v. Wappingers Cent. Sch. Dist., 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 4824 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

by Stephen Bilkis

In K.A. v. Wappingers Central School District, the plaintiffs sought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by K.A., a developmentally disabled young woman, while under the supervision of the defendant school district. The court addressed whether the plaintiffs’ late filing of a notice of claim barred their ability to proceed with the lawsuit.

A Notice of Claim is a legal document required in New York for suing a public entity, such as a school district or municipality. It notifies the entity of the claimant’s intention to file a lawsuit and outlines the basis for the claim. Under General Municipal Law § 50-e, a Notice of Claim must typically be filed within 90 days of the alleged incident. This requirement allows the public entity to investigate the circumstances and assess liability. Failing to file a timely Notice of Claim may result in dismissal of the lawsuit (Education Law § 3813[2]). Courts may allow late filing under specific conditions (General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]).

Background Facts

Published on: June 6, 2024

Court upheld findings of sexual abuse, neglect, and protective measures imposed. Admin. for Children’s Servs. v. Andrew S. (In re Cashmere T.), 77 N.Y.S.3d 477 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

Child protective proceedings aim to safeguard the welfare of children and hold individuals accountable when their behavior endangers a child’s safety. In In re Andrew S., the Family Court addressed allegations of sexual abuse and neglect. The case involved complex legal questions about evidence, credibility, and the protective measures necessary to ensure the safety of children in the household.

Background Facts

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) initiated proceedings under Family Court Act Article 10 against Andrew S., alleging that he sexually abused one child, Cashmere T., and derivatively neglected three others: Kashane R. S., Keyona R., and Kashawn A.S. Following these allegations, the Family Court conducted a fact-finding hearing to evaluate the claims.

Published on: June 5, 2024

Court considered the validity of the restrictions imposed on the father’s parental access to his children. In re Fatuma I., 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 7234 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

In In re Fatuma I., 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 7234 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022), the father appeals from an order dated January 13, 2022, which imposed restrictions on his parental access to his children. The court directed that the father could only have supervised access and prohibited him from being alone with the children or staying overnight in their home.

Background Facts

The subject children were removed from their parents’ care in 2015 due to allegations of sexual abuse and derivative abuse. Derivative abuse refers to a situation where a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect as a result of being in the care of someone who has abused or neglected them indirectly. For example, if a child is exposed to domestic violence between their parents or caregivers, even if they are not the direct target of the abuse, they may still suffer emotional or psychological harm, which is considered derivative abuse. Similarly, if a child witnesses substance abuse or other harmful behaviors by a caregiver, it can have detrimental effects on their well-being, constituting derivative abuse. Essentially, it involves harm suffered by a child due to the actions or behaviors of those responsible for their care, even if the abuse or neglect is not directly inflicted upon the child themselves.

Published on: December 26, 2023

Family Court considered a custody case involving multiple states. Chester HH. v. Angela GG., 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 23204 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

In custody issues involving multiple states, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) governs jurisdictional determinations. The UCCJEA establishes guidelines for determining which state’s court has jurisdiction over the custody matter. Typically, the “home state” where the child has lived for a significant period holds jurisdiction. If a court determines that another state has jurisdiction, it may defer to that state’s authority. The goal is to promote consistency and avoid conflicting custody orders between states, ensuring the child’s best interests are prioritized across jurisdictions.

Background Facts

Chester HH. and Angela GG. share joint legal custody of their child, with Angela having sole physical custody in Michigan. However, a significant event occurred when Chester, residing in New York, brought the child to his home for a visit. During this time, troubling allegations emerged, suggesting neglect and abuse while the child was under Angela’s care in Michigan.