Willful Omission and Derivative Neglect Under Family Court Act Article 10: Matter of Malik M. (Taishona M.)

Introduction

Matter of Malik M. (Taishona M.) (2025 NYSlipOp 01810) is a landmark Second Department decision, handed down on March 26, 2025. In four consolidated Family Court proceedings, the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) alleged that the mother, Taishona M., neglected her children by failing to protect them from sexual abuse, excessive corporal punishment, and domestic violence inflicted by Gary H. The key issues were (1) whether the mother’s “willful omission” to intervene constituted neglect under Family Court Act § 1012(f)(1)(b), and (2) whether such neglect of two children gave rise to derivative neglect of her other children.

Parties:

• Petitioner-Respondent: Administration for Children’s Services (ACS)
• Appellant: Taishona M., the mother
• Respondents: The children (Malik M., Jamyah M., Clarity H. M., Kira M. H.) and the biological father Gary H. (as alleged abuser)
• Court Below: Family Court, Queens County (Judge Elenor Reid-Cherry)

Summary of the Judgment

On February 29, 2024, after a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that:

• Gary H. sexually abused Jamyah M. (validated by expert testimony and corroborated out-of-court statements).
• The mother neglected Jamyah M. and Malik M. by willfully omitting to protect them from sexual abuse, excessive corporal punishment, and domestic violence.
• Derivative neglect extended to the younger children, Clarity H. M. and Kira M. H., due to the mother’s impaired judgment and failure to provide proper guardianship.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the amended order of fact-finding, dismissing the mother’s appeal.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Matter of Shayla G. [Lakisha C.], 233 AD3d 682: Burden of proof (“preponderance of the evidence”) in neglect proceedings.
• Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357: Neglect found where a parent allows a known abuser to return to the home despite risk to children.
• Matter of Patricia B., 61 AD3d 861: A parent’s willful omission to protect from sexual abuse constitutes neglect.
• Matter of Veronica M. [Ana M.], 229 AD3d 626: Use of out-of-court statements and requirement of corroboration in child protective proceedings.
• Matter of Alexis S. [Edward S.], 115 AD3d 866: Expert validation and corroboration of sexual abuse allegations.

These cases collectively shaped the Court’s approach to (a) applying the “willful omission” doctrine, (b) treating inconsistent or repeated hearsay as admissible when corroborated, and (c) affirming derivative neglect once primary neglect is established.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in three steps:

1. Establishing primary neglect: ACS proved that the mother, aware of sexual abuse and domestic violence, did not call law enforcement, allowed the abuser to reside in the home, and failed to protect her children. Under FCA § 1012(f)(1)(b), this constituted neglect by “unreasonably inflicting or allowing to be inflicted harm, or a substantial risk thereof.”
2. Corroboration of abuse allegations: Jamyah M.’s consistent out-of-court statements, validated by ACS’s mental-health expert, met the requirement for corroboration (per Veronica M. and Alexis S.). The Court exercised deference to the Family Court’s credibility findings.
3. Derivative neglect: Once the mother showed a pattern of impaired judgment regarding two children, the same failure of care was imputed to her duties toward Clarity H. M. and Kira M. H., satisfying Family Court Act § 1046(a)(i).

3. Impact

This decision reinforces and clarifies several important points:

• Parental omission to protect a child from known abuse or violence is independently grounds for neglect, even if the parent is also a victim of domestic violence.
• Derivative neglect doctrines will apply broadly once a primary neglect finding is made.
• Experts’ validation of children’s statements significantly strengthens the admissibility and reliability of hearsay in child protective cases.

Future trials will likely see increased reliance on expert-corroborated testimony and more rigorous scrutiny of a parent’s response (or lack thereof) to known risk factors.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Willful omission: A deliberate failure to act when one has a legal duty to protect a child, exposing the child to harm.
• Derivative neglect: Neglect of additional children based on evidence that a parent’s general incapacity or impaired judgment endangers any child in their care.
• Corroboration requirement: Even though a child’s hearsay statements of abuse can’t stand alone, expert testimony or other evidence can confirm their reliability.

Conclusion

Matter of Malik M. (Taishona M.) cements the principle that a parent’s failure to protect a child from abuse—whether sexual assault, excessive corporal punishment, or domestic violence—fulfills the statutory definition of neglect under Family Court Act article 10. By affirming derivative neglect, the decision also underscores that a parent’s general failure of care toward one child logically extends to all children in the household. This ruling will guide Family Courts in weighing parental omissions and expert-validated testimony in future child protective proceedings.