In re Eli G.

15 Citing cases

  1. In Matter of Janiyah T

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 50013 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2010)

    Whether the Underlying Neglect was Based on a Single Incident or a Course of Conduct This factor is considered since it is presumed that the more longstanding the underlying misconduct, the more probative it is of respondent's ability to provide adequate care to any child in the home ( compare Matter of Amanda R., 209 AD2d 702 (2d Dept 1994) (no basis for a derivative finding with respect to a sibling of the target child since a single incident of child maltreatment standing alone does not establish a prima facie case of derivative neglect); In re Samuel Y., 270 AD2d 531 (3d Dept 2000) (no basis for a derivative neglect finding with respect to a sibling of the target child since the single incident when the parent struck the target child in the face was insufficient to prove that the parent manifested such an impaired level of judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in respondent's care)), with Matter of Eli G., 189 AD2d 764 (2d Dept 1993) (respondent's abuse of his son by beating him with an electrical cord was sufficient to establish derivative abuse where the beating was not an isolated incident but a pattern of discipline that the respondent felt was justified); In re Vincent L., 46 AD3d 395 (1st Dept 2007), lv denied 10 NY3d 706 (2008) (respondent's sexual abuse of four children under the age of 14 with whom he had a paternal relationship over the course of three years demonstrated such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm to the remaining children in his care); Matterof Jasmine A. , 18 AD3d 546 (2d Dept 2005) (evidence that one child was sexually and physically abused and that two of her brothers were physically abused constituted sufficient evidence to support a finding of derivative neglect as to the remaining children since respondent's conduct demonstrated a fundamental defect in his understanding of parental duties relating to any other children in his care); Matter o

  2. In the Matter of Janiyah T., 2010 NY Slip Op 50013(U) (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1/7/2010)

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 50013 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2010)

    Whether the Underlying Neglect was Based on a Single Incident or a Course of Conduct This factor is considered since it is presumed that the more longstanding the underlying misconduct, the more probative it is of respondent's ability to provide adequate care to any child in the home (compare Matter of Amanda R., 209 AD2d 702 (2d Dept 1994) (no basis for a derivative finding with respect to a sibling of the target child since a single incident of child maltreatment standing alone does not establish a prima facie case of derivative neglect); In re Samuel Y., 270 AD2d 531 (3d Dept 2000) (no basis for a derivative neglect finding with respect to a sibling of the target child since the single incident when the parent struck the target child in the face was insufficient to prove that the parent manifested such an impaired level of judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in respondent's care)), with Matter of Eli G., 189 AD2d 764 (2d Dept 1993) (respondent's abuse of his son by beating him with an electrical cord was sufficient to establish derivative abuse where the beating was not an isolated incident but a pattern of discipline that the respondent felt was justified); In re Vincent L., 46 AD3d 395 (1st Dept 2007), lv denied 10 NY3d 706 (2008) (respondent's sexual abuse of four children under the age of 14 with whom he had a paternal relationship over the course of three years demonstrated such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm to the remaining children in his care); Matter of Jasmine A., 18 AD3d 546 (2d Dept 2005) (evidence that one child was sexually and physically abused and that two of her brothers were physically abused constituted sufficient evidence to support a finding of derivative neglect as to the remaining children since respondent's conduct demonstrated a fundamental defect in his understanding of parental duties relating to any other children in his care); Matter o

  3. In Matter of Shyrelle F.

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 52193 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2011)

    d and that her brothers were physically abused, supported a finding of derivative neglect as to the remaining children since respondent's conduct demonstrated a fundamental defect in his understanding of parental duties relating to any child in his care]). Similarly, where the underlying finding was based on physical abuse by a respondent a derivative finding may be warranted ( see Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Noreen K.], 242 AD2d 533 [2d Dept 1997] [derivative finding entered based on three non-accidental bone fractures suffered by a two-month-old infant since the injuries showed such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in the parents' care]; In re Joshua R., 47 AD3d 465 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 703 [findings of derivative neglect entered where respondent shoved food into the mouth of a child who refused to eat and then [*8]slapped him in the face causing vomiting, a bloody nose and bruised eye]; Matter of Eli G., 189 AD2d 764 [2d Dept 1993] [respondent's beating of his son with an electrical cord resulting in bruises and lacerations was sufficient to establish derivative abuse where the beating was not an isolated incident but a pattern of discipline that the respondent continued to feel was justified]; Matter of Pierre M., 239 AD2d 262 [1st Dept 1997] [evidence that respondent hit her 15-year-old daughter in the head with a wooden table leg with a nail protruding causing lacerations requiring stitches supported a derivative finding]; Matter of Dareth O., 304 AD2d 667 [2d Dept 2003]). Likewise, derivative neglect findings are often made in cases where the underlying abuse or neglect was based on a course of conduct rather than an isolated incident.

  4. In re Shyrelle F.

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 52193 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2011)

    nd that her brothers were physically abused, supported a finding of derivative neglect as to the remaining children since respondent's conduct demonstrated a fundamental defect in his understanding of parental duties relating to any child in his care]). Similarly, where the underlying finding was based on physical abuse by a respondent a derivative finding may be warranted (see Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Noreen K.], 242 AD2d 533 [2d Dept 1997] [derivative finding entered based on three non-accidental bone fractures suffered by a two-month-old infant since the injuries showed such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in the parents' care]; In re Joshua R., 47 AD3d 465 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 703 [2008] [findings of derivative neglect entered where respondent shoved food into the mouth of a child who refused to eat and then slapped him in the face causing vomiting, a bloody nose and bruised eye]; Matter of Eli G., 189 AD2d 764 [2d Dept 1993] [respondent's beating of his son with an electrical cord resulting in bruises and lacerations was sufficient to establish derivative abuse where the beating was not an isolated incident but a pattern of discipline that the respondent continued to feel was justified]; Matter of Pierre M., 239 AD2d 262 [1st Dept 1997] [evidence that respondent hit her 15-year-old daughter in the head with a wooden table leg with a nail protruding causing lacerations requiring stitches supported a derivative finding]; Matter of Dareth O., 304 AD2d 667 [2d Dept 2003]). Likewise, derivative neglect findings are often made in cases where the underlying abuse or neglect was based on a course of conduct rather than an isolated incident.

  5. In re Naeemah M

    42 A.D.3d 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

    Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Family Court's finding that the subject child is an abused child is supported by a preponderance of the evidence at the hearing ( see Family Court Act § 1012 [e] [i]; § 1046 [a] [vi]; [b] [i]; Matter of Maithsa Edourd S.), 27 AD3d 475 [2006]; Matter of Eli G.), 189 AD2d 764, 764-765; Matter of C. Children), 183 AD2d 767). The mother's remaining contention is without merit.

  6. In the Matter of B

    297 A.D.2d 321 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

    The Family Court's determination that the appellant abused Alberto is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act 1046[b][i]; Matter of Gerald P., 275 A.D.2d 784, 785; Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Douglas E., III] v. Douglas E., Jr., 191 A.D.2d 694). In addition, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of derivative abuse with regard to Marie (see Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Brittney C.], 242 A.D.2d 533, 534; Matter of Eli G., 189 A.D.2d 764, 765; Matter of Christina Maria C., 89 A.D.2d 855; cf. Matter of Christina P., 275 A.D.2d 783, 784; Matter of Ijeoma O., 271 A.D.2d 691, 692; Matter of Department of Social Servs. [Doris M.] v. Juana M., 232 A.D.2d 487). ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and CRANE, JJ., concur.

  7. Matter of Gerald P

    275 A.D.2d 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 2 times

    ORDERED that the orders of disposition are affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements. Contrary to the appellant's contention, the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing established by a preponderance of the evidence that Shaquana P. was an abused child (see, Family Ct Act § 1012[e][ii], 10 46[b][i]; Matter of Eli G., 189 A.D.2d 764; Matter of C. Children, 183 A.D.2d 767). Moreover, the Family Court properly determined that the appellant's remaining children who are the subject of the instant proceeding were derivatively abused, as the evidence established that there was a danger that these children would be subject to the same type of excessive corporal punishment (see, Matter of Eli G., supra). The orders of disposition appealed from have been superseded by subsequent orders of disposition, which are beyond the scope of review of the instant appeals.

  8. Matter of Child Welfare Admin. v. Marsha

    225 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

    Based on its finding that the appellant had abused Maurice, the Family Court made a finding of derivative abuse with regard to the appellant's daughter, Tia, who was approximately one year old at the time of Maurice's death. Considering the nature of the injury to Maurice, the evidence supports the conclusion that Tia was at risk of being subjected to similar abuse ( see, Matter of Eli G., 189 A.D.2d 764; Matter of Ely P., 167 A.D.2d 473, 475). The Family Court's finding of derivative abuse with regard to Tia was, therefore, proper ( see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [e]). Copertino, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

  9. Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Soc. Serv

    215 A.D.2d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 5 times

    The Family Court erred by dismissing the petition that alleges that Joseph P. is a neglected child. The evidence at the fact-finding hearing establishes that Joseph's father inflicted excessive corporal punishment on Joseph, which resulted in bruises and a laceration to the child's buttocks and a buckle-shaped bruise on his back (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Norland B., 191 A.D.2d 632; Matter of Eli G., 189 A.D.2d 764; Matter of Ely P., 167 A.D.2d 473). Since the petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Joseph is a neglected child, we so find and remit the matter to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a dispositional hearing. A finding that a child is neglected does not automatically result in a finding of derivative neglect with regard to that child's siblings (see, Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Douglas E., III] v Douglas E., Jr., 191 A.D.2d 694). Under the circumstances of this case, we find that a derivative finding of neglect with respect to Joseph's 15-year-old sister Gina is not warranted (see, Matter of John S., 175 A.D.2d 207). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Hart, JJ., concur.

  10. Samuel W. v. Luemay F. (In re Proceeding Under Article 10 of the Family Court Act)

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 51154 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2016)

    The excessive corporal punishment finding as to Stephan and Crystal in 2006 coupled with the excessive corporal punishment finding that the Court is now entering as to Crystal evidences a course of conduct that places an infant child at risk. In Matter of Eli G., 189 AD2d 764 (2nd Dep't 1993), the Court upheld a derivative finding of neglect as to the two younger children where the evidence established that the mother's excessive corporal punishment of the older child was not an isolated incident but a pattern of discipline. The Appellate Division also noted that "there was a danger that these children would be subject to the same type of corporeal punishment as they grew older."