Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012

In re Khalil M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 17, 2012

94 A.D.3d 1003; 942 N.Y.S.2d 370

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Nevetia M. (Tiara M.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Kiamal E. (Kim R.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Matter of Kal-El C. (Carla T.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
Matter of Jamel N. A. (Nijer S. J.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Kieara N. (Shasha F.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Justin R. (Gilbert R.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)

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 of the Court

In three related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Kings County (Beckoff, J.), dated April 6, 2011, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that she had neglected the subject children.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The mother appeals from a fact-finding order, which found that she neglected the subject children by failing to supply them with an adequate education (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]). At a fact-finding hearing in a neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject children were neglected (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Aliyah B. [Denise J.], 87 AD3d 943 [2011]). Here, the petitioner met its burden of establishing educational neglect by submitting evidence that, for several school years, each of the three subject children suffered excessive school absences and tardiness for which the mother failed to offer a reasonable justification (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]; Matter of Aliyah B. [Denise J.], 87 AD3d 943 [2011]; Matter of Mariah C. [Frey *1004C.-M], 84 AD3d 1372 [2011]; Matter of Deanna R.G. [Rajkumare B.], 83 AD3d 1064 [2011]; Matter of Eric C. [Barbara C.], 79 AD3d 1037 [2010]; Matter of Evan F., 48 AD3d 811 [2008]).

The mother’s remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.E, Angiolillo, Belen and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.