In New York, parents are legally permitted to discipline their children using reasonable corporal punishment. However, when that punishment causes injury or creates a risk of harm, it may be considered abuse or neglect under the Family Court Act. In Matter of A.H. (J.H.), 2025 NY Slip Op 50317(U), the court considered whether a mother’s alleged physical discipline of her child crossed that legal line. The case arose after a report was made to child protective services regarding an incident that led to visible bruising on the child’s arm. The court conducted a detailed hearing to determine whether the conduct amounted to neglect.
Background Facts
The case began on February 9, 2024, when ACS filed a neglect petition against the respondent mother, J.H., regarding her child, A.H. A day earlier, the child’s father, who was not named as a respondent, filed a family offense petition based on allegations that the mother had used excessive corporal punishment. The court issued a temporary order of protection and ACS followed by filing a neglect petition. ACS alleged that on February 1, 2024, the mother hit the child on his right arm, causing a bruise. The child reportedly asked for an ice pack at school on February 6 and showed the bruise to a school nurse. ACS sent a child protective specialist (CPS) to investigate.
ACS claimed that the child told CPS he was afraid of his mother and that she had hit and slapped him in the past. Based on those statements and observations, ACS sought a finding of neglect.
Question Before the Court
Whether the mother’s conduct, as described in the petition and supporting evidence, met the legal standard for neglect under Family Court Act § 1012(f)(i)(B). The specific question was whether the mother unreasonably inflicted harm, or a substantial risk of harm, and whether the child’s condition had been impaired or was in danger of becoming impaired due to a failure to provide proper supervision or guardianship.
Court’s Decision
After conducting a fact-finding hearing and reviewing all evidence presented by both sides, the court found that ACS failed to prove the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. The court concluded that the evidence did not establish that the respondent mother had neglected her child. As a result, the petition was dismissed, and any orders issued in the case were also dismissed.
Discussion
To support a finding of neglect under Family Court Act § 1012(f), a petitioner must show that the child’s condition was harmed or in imminent danger of harm due to a failure to exercise a minimum degree of care. This includes unreasonable infliction of harm such as excessive corporal punishment. The standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. Hearsay is admissible but must be corroborated.
ACS presented testimony from CPS and entered evidence including the child’s medical records, an oral report transmittal, and photographs. The school nurse confirmed seeing red marks on the child’s arm and treated them with an ice pack. CPS testified that the child said his mother hit him and called him names, and that he was afraid of her. However, the respondent denied the incident and presented videos and photos of the child from the days following the alleged event, showing him playing sports and engaging in normal activities without any visible signs of injury.
An expert physician, Dr. M., reviewed the photograph of the child’s arm and testified that the bruise was fresh and likely only 12 to 48 hours old as of February 7, 2024. That meant the injury did not occur on February 1, as alleged. The court found Dr. M.’s medical opinion credible.
The respondent mother testified in detail about her activities with the child on and after February 1. She described taking the child to school, attending a class field trip, and supervising multiple athletic activities such as soccer, ice skating, and gymnastics. The photographs and videos she submitted supported her testimony and showed no visible bruises on the child’s arms.
The court also found that the child’s statements to CPS about prior incidents were not corroborated. Under Family Court Act § 1046(b)(vi), a child’s prior statements alone are not enough to support a finding of neglect unless they are corroborated by other evidence. No such corroboration was offered in this case.
Even if the court had found the February 1 incident occurred as described by ACS, it stated that a single instance of physical discipline resulting in a minor injury does not automatically amount to neglect. Citing appellate case law, the court pointed out that isolated acts of physical discipline that cause only minor injuries do not meet the legal threshold for a finding of neglect.
Conclusion
The decision confirmed that allegations of neglect must be supported by specific, credible, and consistent evidence that shows a risk to the child’s well-being. Without such evidence, the court will not sustain a finding of neglect.
If you are facing a child neglect investigation or have been accused of child abuse in New York, it is important to understand your rights and legal options. Contact an experienced New York child abuse and neglect lawyer at Stephen Bilkis & Associates to discuss your case and get the legal guidance you need.