IN RE OBED O., AND OTHERS, DEPENDENT CHILDREN UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE, ETC., VERONICA G., res-ap, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, petres

8351. IN RE OBED O., AND OTHERS, DEPENDENT CHILDREN UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE, ETC., VERONICA G., res-ap, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, petres — Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, New York (David K. Kessler of counsel), for ap — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Deborah A. Brenner of counsel), for res — TAMARA A. STECKLER, THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY, NEW YORK (CLAIRE v. MERKINE OF COUNSEL), ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.— Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Karen I. Lupuloff, J.), entered on or about February 27, 2012, which, following a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act §1027, granted petitioner agency's application to remand the subject children to the agency pending resolution of the neglect proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs, and the stay of the order currently in effect continued for 60 days from the date of entry of this order.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

8351. IN RE OBED O., AND OTHERS, DEPENDENT CHILDREN UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE, ETC., VERONICA G., res-ap, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES, petres — Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, New York (David K. Kessler of counsel), for ap — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Deborah A. Brenner of counsel), for res — TAMARA A. STECKLER, THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY, NEW YORK (CLAIRE v. MERKINE OF COUNSEL), ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.— Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Karen I. Lupuloff, J.), entered on or about February 27, 2012, which, following a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act §1027, granted petitioner agency’s application to remand the subject children to the agency pending resolution of the neglect proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs, and the stay of the order currently in effect continued for 60 days from the date of entry of this order.

The record supports the court’s determination that the children’s life or health was at imminent risk of harm (Family Court Act §1027[b] [i]), given the strong evidence of educational neglect and the prior findings of educational and medical neglect (see Matter of Annalize P. [Angie D.], 78 AD3d 413 [1st Dept 2010]; see also Matter of Serenity S. [Iyesha A.], 89 AD3d 737, 739 [2d Dept 2011]). The court correctly found that reasonable efforts had been made to prevent the children’s removal from the home, including agency referrals to various services (see Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 378 [2004]). Despite these efforts and prior neglect findings, the children’s excessive lateness and absence from school continued. Accordingly, the court properly determined that, despite the harm of removal, it was in the childrens best interests to remand them to the agency, rather than return them to respondent mother (see id. at 366-367).

IN RE OBED O., AND OTHERS, DEPENDENT CHILDREN UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE, ETC., VERONICA G., res-ap, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, petres

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal