From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Heith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 25, 1993
189 A.D.2d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

January 25, 1993

Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Deutsch, J.).


Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner made out a prima facie case of abuse as to Amitha and Vohn through expert medical testimony demonstrating that the one was suffering from oral gonorrhea while the other showed evidence of having been subjected to repeated anal sodomy (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]). Since the appellant failed to come forward with evidence demonstrating an adequate explanation for the source of the children's condition not indicative of abuse or neglect on the appellant's part, the Family Court properly found that these children had been subjected to sexual abuse and that the appellant was responsible (see, Matter of F. Children, 178 A.D.2d 246; Matter of P. Children, 172 A.D.2d 839; Matter of Tania J. v. Esther J., 147 A.D.2d 252; Matter of Nicole V., 123 A.D.2d 97, affd 71 N.Y.2d 112; Matter of Cynthia V., 94 A.D.2d 773).

The petitioner also made out a prima facie case of educational neglect with respect to Marcus and Heith. It was demonstrated that neither of these children had ever attended school, and the appellant offered no evidence that they were receiving the required instruction elsewhere (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]; Matter of Christa H., 127 A.D.2d 997; Matter of Kilroy, 121 Misc.2d 98; Blackwelder v. Safnauer, 689 F. Supp. 106, 122). Furthermore, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that Marcus was afflicted with a serious emotional disturbance of long standing and had not been provided with the treatment required to ameliorate the condition (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [h]; § 1046 [a] [viii]). Based upon the petitioner's expert's testimony, the court properly concluded that Heith and Patrice were also in danger of the same neglectful behavior on the part of the appellant (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i], [viii]; Matter of F. Children, 154 A.D.2d 594; Matter of Cruz, 121 A.D.2d 901).

The appellant's remaining contentions are either without merit or academic. Balletta, J.P., Eiber, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Heith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 25, 1993
189 A.D.2d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Matter of Heith

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of HEITH S. and Others, Children Alleged to be Abused and…

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

Date published: Jan 25, 1993

Citations

189 A.D.2d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Citing Cases

Matter of Fatima A. [2d Dept 2000

The Family Court's determination was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct Act §…

Matter of Fatima A.

The Family Court's determination was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct Act §…