Child Abuse & Neglect

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.

Published on: December 20, 2023

In re Aisha R., 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 23174 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

Neglect, as defined under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, refers to a failure to provide proper care for a child. This can include a lack of food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision necessary for the child’s well-being. Neglect can also involve exposing a child to conditions or environments that may harm their physical, mental, or emotional health.

In determining neglect, the court considers whether a parent or guardian’s actions or omissions have caused, or are likely to cause, harm to the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health. It’s not just about intentional harm but also about a failure to provide necessary care or protection.

The standard for neglect is based on what a reasonable and prudent parent would do in similar circumstances. It’s not about perfection, but rather about meeting the basic needs of the child and ensuring their safety and well-being.

Published on: December 18, 2023

Court considered whether a father abused his children by using corporal punishment. In re Loudemya SJ, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 51040 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

Article 10 of the Family Court Act in New York addresses issues related to child abuse and neglect, including the use of corporal punishment. Corporal punishment, defined as the use of physical force against a child for the purpose of discipline, is a contentious issue.

Under Article 10, the definition of neglect includes instances where a child’s physical, mental, or emotional well-being is impaired or at risk due to the failure of a parent or caretaker to exercise proper care and supervision. This broad definition encompasses various forms of maltreatment, including corporal punishment that exceeds what is considered reasonable discipline.

While the law recognizes a parent’s right to discipline their child, it also imposes limitations to prevent abuse. Excessive or severe corporal punishment that results in physical harm or emotional trauma may constitute neglect under Article 10. The threshold for determining what constitutes excessive punishment is based on the minimum degree of care expected from a parent or caregiver.

Published on: December 13, 2023

Court decided that it was in the best interests of the child to terminate parental rights. In re of a Proceeding Under Article 10 of the Family Court Act Y. SS., 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 50968 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

Terminating parental rights in New York means legally severing the relationship between a parent and their child. This action is taken when it’s determined that the parent is unable or unwilling to provide a safe and stable environment for the child. Once parental rights are terminated, the parent no longer has any legal rights or responsibilities regarding the child, including custody, visitation, or decision-making. The child is then placed under the care and supervision of a government agency, typically with the goal of finding a permanent and stable home through adoption. Terminating parental rights is a significant legal step taken to ensure the well-being and safety of the child when it’s deemed that maintaining the parent-child relationship is not in the child’s best interests.

Background Facts

Y. SS. was removed from her mother’s custody in September 2020 after the Department filed a petition alleging abuse and neglect. The specific reasons for removal were related to concerns about the mother’s ability to provide a safe and stable environment for the child. The court intervened to ensure the child’s welfare and initiated legal proceedings to address the situation. Both the Department and the mother were represented in subsequent hearings, where evidence was presented and arguments were made regarding the child’s best interests. The involvement of attorneys and social workers underscored the seriousness of the situation and the need for a thorough legal process to determine the appropriate course of action for the child’s future.

Published on: December 6, 2023

DSS failed to support a claim of neglect. In re Jeremyah P., 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 50765 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

In the context of the Family Court Act Article 10, neglect refers to the failure of a caregiver, typically a parent or guardian, to provide adequate care, supervision, or support for a child’s well-being. This includes the failure to provide essential needs such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, and emotional support. Neglect can manifest in various ways, ranging from physical absence or abandonment to emotional neglect or failure to protect a child from harm or danger. The goal of Article 10 proceedings is to ensure the safety and welfare of children by addressing situations where neglect or maltreatment has occurred or is suspected.

In a recent legal case involving allegations of neglect against two respondents, the court was tasked with determining whether the child in question was indeed neglected as defined by Family Court Act Article 10. The case, which proceeded to a fact-finding hearing, involved the Orange County Department of Social Services (DSS) as the petitioner and two respondents, referred to as J.R. and M.O.

Background Facts

Published on: August 14, 2023

No due process violation found and order terminating parental rights of father upheld. Christopher D.S. v. Richard E.S., 136 A.D.3d 1285 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of Christopher D.S. v. Richard E.S. involves a father’s appeal from a decision terminating his parental rights with respect to five children. The father challenges the denial of his recusal request and asserts a violation of due process regarding diligent efforts for reunification.

In New York, terminating parental rights is governed by Social Services Law § 384–b, a statute designed to protect the welfare of children when parental relationships become untenable. The law outlines a meticulous process to safeguard the best interests of the child before such a severe measure is taken. A termination proceeding under § 384–b typically arises in cases of parental neglect, abuse, or other circumstances jeopardizing the child’s well-being.

Before initiating termination proceedings, the petitioner, often a child protective agency or the Department of Social Services, must establish grounds for termination, such as abandonment, chronic abuse, or substantial neglect. The court conducts a thorough examination, considering the child’s safety and best interests paramount.

Published on: November 9, 2022

Parent who attended to the educational, medical, and emotional needs of the child awarded sole custody. Katie S. v. Christopher K., 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 51145 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

When a New York court issues a custody order that is not deemed a temporary custody order, the order is considered final. The court wants children to have stability. The court, however, will modify a custody order if the situation warrants. For example, if a child is over 12 years old and wants to live with the other parent, that might warrant a modification. If a parent becomes abusive or develops a substance abuse issue, the court would view that as a reason to modify the custody arrangement. Another grounds for modifying custody would be one parent interfering with the other parent’s access to the child. There must be a change in circumstances such that modifying the custody order would be in the best interests of the child.

In Katie S. v. Christopher K., the New York Family Court was asked to determine whether there were changed circumstances such that a change in custody was warranted.

Background