B., CLEOPHUS M., MTR. OF
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Mekayla S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- B., CLEOPHUS, MTR. OF (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re Cleophus B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
As limited by his brief, the Attorney for the Child appeals from that part of an order entered following a fact-finding hearing that dismissed the petition insofar as it alleged that the child who is the subject of this proceeding was derivatively neglected by respondent father. We affirm. Although Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (i) permits evidence of the father’s neglect of siblings of the child to be considered in determining whether the child was neglected, “the statute does not mandate a finding of derivative neglect” (Matter of Jocelyne J., 8 AD3d 978, 979 [2004]), and “such evidence typically may not serve as the sole basis of a finding of neglect” (Matter of Evelyn B., 30 AD3d 913, 914 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 713 [2006]). Family Court properly concluded under the circumstances of this case that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a finding of derivative neglect (see Matter of Ronald M., 254 AD2d 838, 839 [1998]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Green, Gorski and Martoche, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.