New York Court of Appeals, 1979

In re Trina Marie H.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided October 25, 1979

48 N.Y.2d 742; 397 N.E.2d 1327; 422 N.Y.S.2d 659; 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2388

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Loraida G. (NYC Family Court 1999)
It v. State, Dept. of Health & Rehab. Serv. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)
Matter of Juliet W. (Amy W.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
J., JEROMY, MTR. OF (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
M., JESUS, MTR. OF (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Jesus M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Jesus M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Jeromy J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Jeromy J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Joseph MM. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
In re Erica D. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
In re Baby Girl F. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
In re Jesse DD. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
In re Alena O. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
In re Lynelle W. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
In re Katherine C. (New York Family Court 1984)
Irene D. v. Anthony D. (NYC Family Court 1982)
In re Shane T. (NYC Family Court 1982)
In re Shelley Renea K (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

We cannot say as a matter of law that the evidence was insufficient to support the Family Court’s adjudication of neglect (Family Ct Act, § 1012, subd [f]). In particular, the mother’s mental retardation, while not a per se basis for a finding of neglect, adds to the legitimate concern that her toleration of her present husband’s beating of the infant child and her own lack of proper care, as demonstrated by incidents in which she physically manhandled the child and repeatedly left her at home unattended, will not readily yield to reformation. We therefore cannot say that the Family Court abused its discretion in issuing the limited order of removal.

*744Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.