 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
RESPONDENT CHILD PARENT CARE FAMILY COURT CUSTODIAN YOLANDA ACT HOUSEHOLD FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT REGULAR MATTER PROCEEDING STATUTE PROPER RESPONDENT CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDING AFFIRM GUARDIAN APPELLATE DIVISION NIECE PETITION PENNSYLVANIA PERMANENT BASIS RELEVANT TIME LOCO PARENTIS PARAMOURS AD2D OVERNIGHT REQUIRING |
IN THE MATTER OF YOLANDA D. (ANONYMOUS). ORANGE COUNTY DEP'T SOCIAL SERVS.,
RESPONDENT, v. ALEXANDER W. (ANONYMOUS) , APPELLANT.
88 N.Y.2d 790, 673 N.E.2d 1228, 651 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1996).
October 22, 1996
2 No. 212 (1996 NY Int.203)
Decided October 22, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Maria Joy Frank , for Appellant.
Richard B. Golden , for Respondents.
Stuart I. Greenberg, law guardian.
SMITH, J.:
The issue presented on this appeal is whether Family Court properly
exercised jurisdiction over the appellant, the uncle of the abused
child, as a person legally responsible for his niece's care ( see ,
Family Ct Act § 1012(a), (g)). Concluding that appellant was a proper
respondent in the child protective proceeding pursuant to section
1012(a) of the Family Court Act, we affirm the order of the Appellate
Division.
The respondent on this appeal, the Orange County Department of Social
Services (DSS), brought this Family Court Act article 10 proceeding
alleging that appellant sexually abused his niece, Yolanda D., during
the summer of 1991.1 The petition alleged that the abuse occurred
on numerous occasions at appellant's Pennsylvania home. After a
hearing, Family Court found that appellant had sexually abused his
12-year-old niece during the summer of 1991, and that he had been a
person legally responsible for her care during that time. Family Court
also found that Yolanda had been sexually abused by the appellant when
she was 10 and 11 years old. Yolanda was adjudged an abused child and
a dispositional order was entered placing appellant under the
supervision of DSS and requiring him to attend a sex offender therapy
program. Family Court also directed the entry of an order of
protection requiring appellant to stay 1000 feet away from Yolanda and
the other children named in the petition.
Appellant appealed the factfinding and dispositional orders arguing,
in part, that he had not been a proper respondent in the Family Court
proceeding because he was not a person legally responsible for
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
