LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

NASSAU COUNTY DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVS. v DENISE J Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: NASSAU COUNTY DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVS., State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>087_0073, Appellant, Dante, Neglect, Impairment, Positive Toxicology, Family Court, Cocaine, Drug, Evidence, Care, Dss, Child, Imminent Danger, Dantia, Controlled Substance, Family Court Act, Pregnancy, Proceeding, Birth, Social Services, Report, Mother, Testify, Nassau County, Newborn, Affirm, Appellate Division, Support, Custody, Statute , ContentID: 120250851

Case Documents
1 1995-11-30 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 124760
5 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 5 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DANTE
NEGLECT
IMPAIRMENT
POSITIVE TOXICOLOGY
FAMILY COURT
COCAINE
DRUG
EVIDENCE
CARE
DSS
CHILD
IMMINENT DANGER
DANTIA
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
FAMILY COURT ACT
PREGNANCY
PROCEEDING
BIRTH
SOCIAL SERVICES
REPORT
MOTHER
TESTIFY
NASSAU COUNTY
NEWBORN
AFFIRM
APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPPORT
CUSTODY
STATUTE


  IN THE MATTER OF NASSAU COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES O/B/O DANTE M.
  (ANONYMOUS), RESPONDENT, v. DENISE J. (ANONYMOUS), APPELLANT. (PROCEEDING NO.
  1)
  IN THE MATTER OF NASSAU COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES O/B/O DANTIA M.
  (ANONYMOUS), RESPONDENT, v. DENISE J. (ANONYMOUS), APPELLANT. (PROCEEDING NO.
  2)

    87 N.Y.2d 73, 661 N.E.2d 138, 637 N.Y.S.2d 666
    November 30, 1995

   2 No. 209 (1995 NY Int. 260)
   Decided November 30, 1995
     _________________________________________________________________

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

   Jeremy L. Goldberg, for Appellant.
   Denise R. Langweber, Law guardian
   Marilyn L. Olshansky, for Respondent presentment agency.

   SMITH, J.:

   The issue before this Court is whether a finding of neglect as to a
   newborn and the newborn's older sibling may be based solely on the
   newborn's positive toxicology for a controlled substance. We conclude
   that more than a positive toxicology is generally required for a
   neglect determination. We affirm in this case because, as the
   Appellate Division concluded, there is additional evidence in the
   record supporting the Family Court's findings of neglect.

   Appellant gave birth to her son Dante in November, 1990. Both mother
   and son tested positive for cocaine. After learning of the positive
   toxicologies, the Nassau County Department of Social Services ("DSS")
   brought a petition pursuant to section 1022 of the Family Court Act to
   temporarily remove Dante from appellant's care. Family Court conducted
   a hearing on the removal petition on November 21, 1990.

   At the hearing, DSS presented evidence that Dante was born with a
   positive toxicology for cocaine and a low birth weight. DSS also
   presented evidence that appellant had a history of cocaine abuse, had
   been admitted to several drug rehabilitation centers, and that
   appellant's mother had custody of two of appellant's children because
   appellant's drug use rendered her incapable of caring for them.
   Appellant's mother informed DSS that she had observed appellant high
   on cocaine in the last weeks of appellant's pregnancy with Dante.
SNIPPETS:
  • (PROCEEDING NO. 1)
  • IN THE MATTER OF NASSAU COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES O/B/O DANTIA M., RESPONDENT, v.
  • The issue before this Court is whether a finding of neglect as to a newborn and the newborn's
  • We affirm in this case because, as the Appellate Division concluded, there is additional
  • Appellant gave birth to her son Dante in November,
  • After learning of the positive toxicologies, the Nassau County Department of Social Services
  • DSS presented evidence that Dante was born with a positive toxicology for cocaine and a low
  • DSS also presented evidence that appellant had a history of cocaine abuse, had been admitted
  • Appellant's mother informed DSS that she had observed appellant high on cocaine in the last
  • Appellant did not present any witnesses at the removal hearing, but argued that DSS had
  • DSS subsequently brought this consolidated child protective proceeding against appellant on
  • The experts also testified that appellant was voluntarily receiving counseling at a general
  • Thus, the statute sets forth two predicates for a finding of neglect: actual physical,
  • A trier of fact may draw the strongest inference that the opposing evidence permits against a
  •    |