IN RE QUALIAYAH J., AND ANOTHER., CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS, ETC., TANEKA J., res-ap, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, pet-res

3688-3689. IN RE QUALIAYAH J., AND ANOTHER., CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS, ETC., TANEKA J., res-ap, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, pet-res — Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York (Richard L. Herzfeld of counsel), for ap — Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jonathan A. Popolow of counsel), for res — TAMARA A. STECKLER, THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY, NEW YORK (DIANE PAZAR OF COUNSEL), ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.—Order, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about July 9, 2015, which, after a hearing, found that respondent mother neglected the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from dispositional order, same Court and Justice, entered on or about March 4, 2016, which placed the children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services until the next scheduled permanency hearing, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

3688-3689. IN RE QUALIAYAH J., AND ANOTHER., CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS, ETC., TANEKA J., res-ap, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES, pet-res — Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York (Richard L. Herzfeld of counsel), for ap — Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jonathan A. Popolow of counsel), for res — TAMARA A. STECKLER, THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY, NEW YORK (DIANE PAZAR OF COUNSEL), ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.—Order, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about July 9, 2015, which, after a hearing, found that respondent mother neglected the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from dispositional order, same Court and Justice, entered on or about March 4, 2016, which placed the children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services until the next scheduled permanency hearing, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The mother’s regular, long-term drug use while the children were in her care constituted prima facie evidence of neglect, and she failed to rebut the statutory presumption by showing that she was participating in treatment (Family Ct Act §1046[a] [iii]). In fact, the evidence affirmatively showed that the mother had refused all of the agency’s referrals and maintained that she was not addicted to marijuana. The Family Court properly determined that the mother had neglected the children on account of her drug use (Matter of Nadia S. [Ron S.], 138 AD3d 526, 527 [1st Dept 2016] [child neglected due to father's "admitted use of marijuana almost every day and his refusal to seek treatment"]). The deplorable and unsanitary condition of the mother’s apartment lends further support to the Family Court’s neglect finding (Matter of Ze’Nya G., 126 AD3d 566 [1st Dept 2015]).

IN RE QUALIAYAH J., AND ANOTHER., CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS, ETC., TANEKA J., res-ap, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, pet-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal