From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Krystin M

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 28, 2002
294 A.D.2d 577 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

00-04291, 00-04293

Submitted April 22, 2002

May 28, 2002.

In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from so much of two orders of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Pearce, J.), both dated March 17, 2000 (one as to each child), as, upon two fact-finding orders of the same court, both dated December 16, 1999 (one as to each child), made after a hearing, determined that she neglected her two daughters. The appeal from the orders of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding orders.

Francine Shraga, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Barry P. Schwartz and Scott Shorr of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.

Monica Drinane, New York, N.Y. (Robyne Camp and Judith Waksberg of counsel), Law Guardian for the children.

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the orders of disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing established that the appellant's five-year-old daughter was sexually abused by Lemuel A., the appellant's live-in companion. Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the evidence likewise established that she neglected her children. Family Court Act § 1012(f)(i) provides that a parent has neglected his or her child where that parent allows the child to be harmed or placed in substantial risk of harm. The parent must, by willful omission, fail to protect the child and as a consequence places the child in imminent danger of sexual abuse (see Matter of Christina P., 275 A.D.2d 783, 784). Here, by allowing Lemuel A. to remain in the residence and have frequent unsupervised contact with the child despite her credible and ultimately proven complaints of his abuse, the appellant "demonstrated a fundamental defect in [her] understanding of the duties and obligations of parenthood and created an atmosphere detrimental to the physical, mental and emotional well-being of [her daughter] as well" (Matter of Jennifer G., 261 A.D.2d 823 quoting Matter of Lynelle W., 177 A.D.2d 1008, 1009).

Based on these circumstances, the Family Court also providently exercised its discretion in finding that the mother derivatively neglected her other daughter.

SANTUCCI, J.P., S. MILLER, KRAUSMAN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Krystin M

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 28, 2002
294 A.D.2d 577 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

In the Matter of Krystin M

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF KRYSTIN M. (ANONYMOUS). ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 28, 2002

Citations

294 A.D.2d 577 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
742 N.Y.S.2d 575

Citing Cases

In re Jada W.

A finding of neglect is warranted when a parent allows the child to be harmed or placed in substantial risk…

In re Patricia

The determination of the Family Court that the mother neglected the subject children was supported by a…