Child Abuse & Neglect

Published on: January 6, 2025

Court changed child’s permanency goal from reunification with mother to adoption due to safety concerns. Westchester Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Shay S. P. (In re Peter T.), 173 A.D.3d 1043, (N.Y. App. Div. 2019),

by Stephen Bilkis

Family Court decisions can significantly impact families, particularly when they involve decisions about a child’s future care. A permanency goal in New York refers to a plan established during family court proceedings to determine the long-term living arrangement for a child in foster care. Goals can include reunification with parents, adoption, placement with relatives, or another planned permanent living arrangement. The goal is set based on the child’s best interests, safety, and well-being. It provides a framework for the child’s future, ensuring stability and security. Permanency planning is important because it seeks to minimize the time a child spends in temporary care, promoting continuity and reducing the potential emotional and developmental impact of prolonged uncertainty.

This case involved a mother who appealed a Family Court decision to change the permanency goal for her child from reunification to placement for adoption. The court considered the child’s best interests, the mother’s progress with services, and the risks associated with returning the child to her custody.

Background Facts

Published on: December 23, 2024

Maternal grandmother found to have neglected children under Family Court Act. In re Jonah B., 85 N.Y.S.3d 597, (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involved proceedings under Family Court Act Article 10 to determine whether the maternal grandmother of three children, Talia, Jonah, and Adele, was legally responsible for their care and whether she neglected them. In April 2014, the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) initiated proceedings against the parents and the maternal grandmother, alleging abuse and neglect of Talia and derivative abuse and neglect of Jonah. After Adele’s birth in February 2015, ACS brought a third proceeding alleging that Adele was derivatively abused and neglected. The allegations centered on the maternal grandmother’s role in caring for the children and her failure to protect them.

The maternal grandmother had a substantial presence in the household. She visited daily, stayed overnight two to three times per week, and provided regular care for Talia, including feeding, diaper changes, bathing, and supervising her while the mother rested or performed household tasks. Despite these responsibilities, the grandmother contested that she was not a person legally responsible for the children and denied the allegations of neglect.

Question Before the Court

Published on: December 8, 2024

Corporal punishment and allegations of neglect. Admin. for Children’s Servs. v. Ketly M. (In re Alven V. ), 143 N.Y.S.3d 577 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Admin. for Children’s Servs. v. Ketly M, the Family Court of Kings County addressed allegations of child neglect against a stepmother. The case raised questions about the use of corporal punishment and its legal limits. The court found that the stepmother had neglected one child through excessive corporal punishment and derivatively neglected two other children in the household.

In the context of child neglect, corporal punishment refers to the use of physical force as a disciplinary method. While parents or guardians may use reasonable physical discipline, excessive corporal punishment crosses the line into neglect under New York law. Neglect occurs when physical force causes harm or poses a substantial risk of harm to a child’s physical or emotional well-being. Actions such as hitting a child with objects or inflicting injuries demonstrate excessive corporal punishment. Courts assess whether the punishment was reasonable based on the circumstances, the child’s age, and the severity of the discipline (see Family Ct Act § 1012(f)(i)(B)).

Background Facts

Published on: December 6, 2024

Mother’s permanency hearing appealed dismissed as moot. Westchester Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Antoinette W. (In re Malazah W.), 121 N.Y.S.3d 677 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

Permanency hearings are critical in child welfare cases, ensuring that children placed in the care of social services have stable and appropriate long-term plans. In Matter of Malazah W. and Malikah W., the Family Court addressed the permanency goal for two children removed from their mother’s care due to neglect. The mother appealed a February 2019 permanency hearing order, which continued the goal of reunification and the children’s placement with Westchester County’s Commissioner of Social Services (CSS).

Background Facts

Antoinette W., the mother of Malazah W. and Malikah W., consented to a finding of neglect without admission under Family Court Act Article 10. The children were placed in the custody of CSS. As part of the permanency planning process, a hearing was held in November 2018 to assess the children’s status and determine the appropriate permanency goal.

Published on: December 1, 2024

Father’s abuse of one child led to derivative neglect findings. In re Joshua J.P. (Anonymous). Admin. for Children’s Servs., 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 3538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a case addressing allegations of sexual abuse and derivative neglect, the Family Court, Richmond County, issued an order that found Alquiber R., Sr., responsible for sexually abusing his stepson, Joshua P., and derivatively neglecting his two biological children, Luis P. and Alquiber R. The decision underscores the court’s role in protecting the safety and well-being of children and its reliance on corroborated testimony and expert evidence in cases involving abuse allegations. This blog examines the case, the questions it raised, and the court’s determination.

Background Facts

The petitioner in this case, the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), alleged that Alquiber R., Sr., sexually abused Joshua P., a child in his care, and that this conduct demonstrated a lack of judgment that placed his other children, Luis P. and Alquiber R., at risk of harm. Joshua P. made out-of-court statements describing incidents of abuse, which were later corroborated by a sexual abuse expert and an ACS caseworker. ACS argued that this evidence was sufficient to establish that Alquiber R., Sr.’s conduct not only harmed Joshua P. but also created a dangerous environment for the other children.

Published on: November 7, 2024

Family Court Finds Sexual Abuse and Derivative Neglect of Children. Nassau Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. George R. (In re Alexandria F.), 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 7122 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018

by Stephen Bilkis

In family law cases, the welfare of children is always the priority, especially in cases involving abuse or neglect. This case involving George R. and Adalila R.-S. involves issues of abuse, derivative neglect, custody, and access. The Family Court in Nassau County made multiple findings, which were later modified by the appellate court.

Background Facts

This case involved three children: Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W. R. George R. was the biological father of the younger two children, but not Alexandria F., who was the child of the mother and another man, John F. The children lived with the mother and George R.

Published on: November 6, 2024

Court found abuse, neglect, and derivative neglect of multiple children. Orange Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Al Quran F. (In re Kristina I.), 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 5041 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Orange Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Al Quran F., the Family Court, Orange County, reviewed allegations of abuse and neglect involving Al Quran F., a person legally responsible for multiple children in his household. The court examined claims of direct abuse and neglect against one child, Kristina I., and derivative abuse and neglect involving 12 other children. The court’s findings and subsequent rulings highlighted the standards under Family Court Act article 10 and the implications for parental responsibility.

Background Facts

The case began when the petitioner initiated proceedings under Family Court Act article 10. The allegations centered on Al Quran F.’s actions toward Kristina I., specifically sexual abuse, which the petitioner argued constituted both abuse and neglect. Additionally, the petitioner contended that this behavior indicated a lack of parental judgment and understanding, affecting the well-being of the other 12 children living in the same household. These children included Akilah F., Al Quran F., Izaiah F., La’Rai F., Alana I., Christopher I., Briana M., Angelica I., Olivia F., Jaiden P., Elias P. F., and Syris P. F.

Published on: October 5, 2024

Court terminated the father’s parental rights, citing mental illness and permanent neglect. In re William L., 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 3838 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involved the termination of a father’s parental rights to his three children, William, Hailey, and Amanda, under Social Services Law § 384-b. The Family Court found that the father was unable to care for the children due to mental illness and had permanently neglected them. The court transferred custody and guardianship of two of the children to the Commissioner of Social Services and the foster mother for adoption. The father appealed the decision, and the Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s findings and orders.

Background Facts

The father had three children: William, born in 2004; Hailey, born in 2005; and Amanda, born in 2011. In 2009, William and Hailey were removed from their parents’ care and placed with their paternal grandmother due to concerns about their safety. Amanda, born later, was placed with the grandmother in 2012. During this time, the grandmother allowed the father to have unsupervised contact with the children in violation of existing orders of protection. This led to the removal of all three children from the grandmother’s custody in 2012, and they were placed with a foster mother.

Published on: October 2, 2024

Appellate Division found that injuries are not required to meet criminal definition of serious physical injury to be considered child abuse. Admin. for Children’s Servs. v. Ferida B. (In re Jonah B.), 85 N.Y.S.3d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involved three related child abuse and neglect proceedings under the Family Court Act, Article 10, in Queens County, New York. The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) filed allegations against the parents and maternal grandmother of a child named Talia. The Family Court, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed allegations of abuse and derivative abuse. ACS and the children appealed, arguing that the court erred in not finding abuse.

Background Facts

In April 2014, ACS began two child abuse and neglect proceedings against the mother, father, maternal grandmother, and paternal grandmother. The allegations centered on the care of the child Talia, who was four months old at the time. Talia was taken to the hospital on April 7, 2014, where doctors diagnosed her with multiple injuries, including rib fractures, fractures in both legs, and a fracture in her right arm. The injuries occurred between her birth on December 5, 2013, and April 7, 2014. ACS claimed these injuries were not accidental and were inflicted while Talia was in the care of her parents and grandmothers. ACS also argued that Jonah, Talia’s sibling, was derivatively abused.

Published on: October 1, 2024

Mother found to have abused child, even though multiple caregivers were present around the time of the injuries. Admin. for Children’s Servs. v. Allison B. (In re Dall. P.), 185 A.D.3d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

When it comes to abuse of children, the courts look at not only the person who was accursed of inflicting the abuse, but also any individuals who were caring for the child around the time that the abuse occurred. Admin. for Children’s Servs. v. Allison B. (In re Dall. P.), 185 A.D.3d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020) involved serious injuries to a two-year-old child and raised questions about the responsibilities and actions of caregivers. The court had to determine whether the mother could be held responsible for her child’s injuries based on the evidence presented during the fact-finding hearing.

Background Facts

The case began when the mother and her boyfriend brought the mother’s two-year-old son, Dallas P., to Jamaica Hospital on August 22, 2015. Dallas had a ruptured bowel that required emergency surgery. The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) initiated legal proceedings under Family Court Act Article 10, alleging that the mother had abused the child. During the fact-finding hearing, the court heard from several witnesses, including medical professionals. Dr. Edmond Kessler, the treating pediatric surgeon, testified that faint bruises were observed on the child and that the only reasonable explanation for the injury was a single, high-velocity traumatic event. Dr. Kessler also indicated that the injury occurred within 6 to 24 hours before Dallas was admitted to the hospital.