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 NAOMI R. (Anonymous). ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, appellant; RONALD J. (Anonymous), respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) IN THE MATTER OF NACOLE F.-J. (Anonymous). ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, appellant; RONALD J. (Anonymous), respondent. (Proceeding No. 2) IN THE MATTER OF JEROME J. (Anonymous). ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, appellant; RONALD J. (Anonymous), respondent. (Proceeding No. 3) IN THE MATTER OF NADRIA J. (Anonymous). ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, appellant; RONALD J. (Anonymous), respondent. (Proceeding No. 4)

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order dated December 14, 2001, is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the temporary order of protection dated October 26, 2001, is reinstated pending final determination of the proceeding.

These child protective proceedings were instituted to remove four minor children from Ronald J.'s home based upon allegations that he had sexually abused one of the children. A temporary order of protection was issued on October 26, 2001, which, inter alia, excluded Ronald J. from the home, aside from the times when he was exercising visitation and being supervised by the agency.

The evidence adduced by the petitioner at the hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027 was of a sufficient level to raise concern that one of the children had been sexually abused, and thus, established that Ronald J.'s return to the home, even under the mother's supervision, presents an imminent risk to the health and safety of all of the children. Moreover, it is clear from the record that the mother does not believe her daughter's allegations, and, therefore, would not provide proper supervision. In light of the evidence presented, the safer course is to maintain the status quo until after a full fact-finding hearing (see Family Ct Act § 1027; Matter of Erika B., 268 A.D.2d 586.

FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN THE MATTER OF NAOMI R
(Jul 15, 2002)