In re Elisha M.W., 96 A.D.3d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Elisha M.W., 96 A.D.3d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Alivia F. (John F.), 194 A.D.3d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2021)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 864 Balancing due process rights with child's best interests5 citing casesderivately abused Elisha M.W, released the subject children to the custody of the mother. The father’s appeal from the order of disposition brings up for…opening of page *864 (no citing court says what it cites this page for) · 4 listed here
  • Matter of Alivia F. (John F.), 194 A.D.3d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2021).published
    The Family Court must balance the due process rights of the respondent parent with the mental and emotional well-being of the child ( see Matter of Nevaeh L.-B. [Marcus B.] , 178 AD3d at 706; Matter of Elisha M.W. [Ronald W.] , 96 AD3d at…
  • Matter of Nevaeh L.-B. (Marcus B.), 178 A.D.3d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2019).published
    "The right of a respondent parent to be present at every stage of a Family Court Act article 10 proceeding is not absolute, as such a proceeding is civil in nature'" ( Matter of Elisha M.W. [Ronald W.] , 96 AD3d at 864, quoting Matter of Q…
  • Matter of Hannah T.R. (Soya R.), 149 A.D.3d 958 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).published
    Here, the court properly weighed the respective rights and interests of the mother and the subject child and thereafter providently exercised its discretion in permitting the child to testify via a two-way closed-circuit television arrange…
  • In re Kyanna T., 99 A.D.3d 1011 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012).published 2 cites
    Moreover, because the attorneys for Winston R. and the mother were present during Kyanna T.’s testimony and cross-examined her on their behalf, the constitutional rights of the mother and Winston R. were not violated by their exclusion fro…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Elisha M.W. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent Ronald W., (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Rebekah J.W. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent Ronald W., (Proceeding No. 2.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 13, 2012.
Published opinion
96 A.D.3d 863
Published

—In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Lim, J.), dated February 10, 2011, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated October 25, 2010, made after a hearing, finding that he abused Rebekah J.W and[*864] derivately abused Elisha M.W, released the subject children to the custody of the mother. The father’s appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The right of a respondent parent “to be present at every stage of a Family Court Act article 10 proceeding is not absolute, as such a proceeding is civil in nature” (Matter of Q.-L. H., 27 AD3d 738, 739 [2006]; see Matter of Deshawn D.O. [Maria T.O.], 81 AD3d 961, 962 [2011]). “The Family Court must balance the due process rights of an article 10 respondent with the mental and emotional well being of the child” (Matter of Q.-L. H., 27 AD3d at 739; see Matter of Deshawn D.O. [Maria T.O.], 81 AD3d at 962). Here, the Family Court properly weighed the respective rights and interests of the father and the subject child Rebekah J.W., and thereafter providently exercised its discretion in permitting her to testify via closed-circuit television so that she did not have to testify in front of her father (see Matter of Q.-L. H., 27 AD3d at 739). Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.