green
Positive treatment
6.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Alexander Z.
Evidence that a parent neglected a child is admissible to prove that the parent neglected another child (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]), but may not provide the sole basis for a determination of derivative neglect unless the parent’s past conduct demonstrates “fundamental flaws in the [parent’s] understanding of the duties of parenthood — flaws that are so profound as to place any child in his or her care at substantial risk of harm” (Matter of Brad I. [Brad J.], 117 AD3d 1242 , 1243-1244 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Kole HH., 61 AD3d 104…
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Alexander Z.
Evidence that a parent neglected a child is admissible to prove that the parent neglected another child (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]), but may not provide the sole basis for a determination of derivative neglect unless the parent’s past conduct demonstrates “fundamental flaws in the [parent’s] understanding of the duties of parenthood — flaws that are so profound as to place any child in his or her care at substantial risk of harm” (Matter of Brad I. [Brad J.], 117 AD3d 1242 , 1243-1244 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Kole HH., 61 AD3d 104…
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Joanne II.
However, evidence of the abuse of one child can suffice to establish derivative abuse or neglect when the conduct at issue “evidenced] fundamental flaws in the respondent’s understanding of the duties of parenthood” so profound as to place any child in his or her care at substantial risk of harm (Matter of Evelyn B., 30 AD3d 913, 915 [2006], Iv denied 7 NY3d 713 [2006] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Kole HH., 61 AD3d 1049, 1053 [2009], Iv dismissed 12 NY3d 898 [2009]; Matter of Shaun X., 300 AD2d 772, 772 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Joanne II.
However, evidence of the abuse of one child can suffice to establish derivative abuse or neglect when the conduct at issue “evidenced] fundamental flaws in the respondent’s understanding of the duties of parenthood” so profound as to place any child in his or her care at substantial risk of harm (Matter of Evelyn B., 30 AD3d 913, 915 [2006], Iv denied 7 NY3d 713 [2006] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Kole HH., 61 AD3d 1049, 1053 [2009], Iv dismissed 12 NY3d 898 [2009]; Matter of Shaun X., 300 AD2d 772, 772 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Imani W.
Matter of Jasmine Pauline M., 62 AD3d 483 [1st Dept 2009]; Matter of Corinthian Marie S., 297 AD2d 382 [2d Dept 2002]; Matter of Stephen B., 176 AD2d 1204 [4th Dept 1991]; Matter of Angela Marie N., 223 AD2d 423 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 814 [1996]). 1 New York State statutory law does not allow post-termination contact unless a parent surrenders his or her parental rights (Matter of Gregory B., 74 NY2d 77, 91 [1989] [emphasizing that the Legislature should determine which circumstances are amenable to an “open adoption” process]; see Social Services Law § 383-c [providing proced…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matter of B.F. v. Administration for Children's Servs.
(2×)
With respect to the petitions concerning Frank J.'s three children, I agree with the majority that the Appellate Division properly affirmed Family Court's derivative neglect determination"; "The fact that Frank J. does not meet the statutory definition of a PLR concerning the care of another child does not foreclose the agency from proceeding against him with respect to his own"]; see also Matter of Kole HH., 61 AD3d 1049, 1052-1053 [3d Dept 2009], lv dismissed 12 NY3d 898 [2009]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Kole HH. and Another, Children Alleged to Be Neglected. Broome County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Thomas HH., Appellant, Et Al., Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 25, 2009.
912 N.E.2d 1058
Published
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.