AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of MADISON H. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Respondent; MARGARET M., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of MARK B., JR. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Respondent; MARGARET M., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)

Ordered that the fact-finding order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Tristan R., 63 AD3d 1075; Matter of Jonathan W., 17 AD3d 374, 375). The out-of-court statements of the subject children, Madison H. and Mark B., sufficiently cross-corroborated one another ( see Matter of Tristan R., 63 AD3d 1075; Matter of Joshua B., 28 AD3d 759). Viewing the record as a whole, and according great weight to the hearing court's credibility determinations, we discern no basis to disturb the Family Court's finding of neglect as to both children ( see Matter of Michael M., 39 AD3d 550, 551; Matter of Joshua B., 28 AD3d 759; compare Matter of Peter G., 6 AD3d 201).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN RE MADISON H
(Oct 20, 2009)