minimum degree of care standard in New York

2005“The minimum degree of care standard requires an objective evaluation of respondent’s actions in light of what a reasonable and prudent parent would have done” (Matter of Christopher JJ., 281 AD2d 720, 721 [2001]; see Matter of Kenneth V. [appeal No. 2], 307 AD2d 767 , 768 [2003]).

2004The minimum degree of care standard has been identified as an objective evaluation of the parent's actions "in light of what a reasonable and prudent parent would have done" ( see Matter of Kenneth V., 307 AD2d 767 ; Matter of Christopher JJ., 281 AD2d 720 ).

2017It is well settled that “a party seeking to establish neglect must show, by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]), first, that a child’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and second, that the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship” (Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368 [2004]; see Matter of Afton C. [James C.], 17 NY3d 1, 9 [2011]). “ The

2017The minimum degree of care standard acts as a “baseline of proper care for children that all parents, regardless of lifestyle or social or economic position, must meet” and a failure thereof must be “actual, not threatened” (Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d at 370 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Natasha W. v New York State Off. of Children & *11 Family Servs., 145 AD3d at 406 ).

2003“To support a finding of neglect petitioner must prove both parental misconduct and harm or potential harm to a child” by a preponderance of the evidence {id. at 721; see § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1, 3 [1985]; Matter of Stephanie B., 245 AD2d 1062 [1997]).

2001To support a finding of neglect petitioner must prove both parental misconduct and harm or potential harm to a child (see, Matter of Ronnie XX., 273 AD2d 491, 493 ) by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; see also, Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1, 3 ).

2005“The minimum degree of care standard requires an objective evaluation of respondent’s actions in light of what a reasonable and prudent parent would have done” (Matter of Christopher JJ., 281 AD2d 720, 721 [2001]; see Matter of Kenneth V. [appeal No. 2], 307 AD2d 767 , 768 [2003]).

2004The minimum degree of care standard has been identified as an objective evaluation of the parent's actions "in light of what a reasonable and prudent parent would have done" ( see Matter of Kenneth V., 307 AD2d 767 ; Matter of Christopher JJ., 281 AD2d 720 ).

2017It is well settled that “a party seeking to establish neglect must show, by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]), first, that a child’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and second, that the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship” (Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368 [2004]; see Matter of Afton C. [James C.], 17 NY3d 1, 9 [2011]). “ The

2017It is well settled that “a party seeking to establish neglect must show, by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]), first, that a child’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and second, that the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship” (Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368 [2004]; see Matter of Afton C. [James C.], 17 NY3d 1, 9 [2011]). “ The

2017It is well settled that “a party seeking to establish neglect must show, by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]), first, that a child’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and second, that the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship” (Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368 [2004]; see Matter of Afton C. [James C.], 17 NY3d 1, 9 [2011]). “ The

2017The minimum degree of care standard acts as a “baseline of proper care for children that all parents, regardless of lifestyle or social or economic position, must meet” and a failure thereof must be “actual, not threatened” (Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d at 370 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Natasha W. v New York State Off. of Children & *11 Family Servs., 145 AD3d at 406 ).