Israel, In re, ISRAEL--
| Decision Date | 07 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | ISRAEL-- |
| Citation | 24 Misc.2d 1089,206 N.Y.S.2d 467 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Stellaborn |
| Court | New York Domestic Relations Court |
The three children aged three, two and almost one year of age respectively were brought before the Court as neglected on the petition of a Social Investigator of the Department of Welfare on June 29, 1960. The petition cited Samuel Israel, also known as Aber Goldberg, and Sandra Israel as the parents and set forth that the children are Hebrew. The petition alleged that the children were under improper care and supervision, that the father was a severe psychopath and had threatened to kill the Petitioner, that he had not attempted to establish a permanent home for his family, had no apparent means of support, and had refused assistance from the Department of Welfare. It further alleged that the family was evicted three times since January, 1960 and that the home was in a filthy condition. The mother was alleged to be mentally defective.
On the initial appearance of the respondent-parents following execution of a warrant, the Justice presiding committed both to Bellevue Hospital for observation because of irrationale behavior in the Court. The children were temporarily remanded to Windham Children's Service returnable July 18, 1960. After a further adjournment of ten days, a hearing was held and the court made a finding on July 28, 1960 that the children were neglected. At that time the mother was present and consented to temporary placement. The father, in the meantime, had been certified as mentally ill and sent to Manhattan State Hospital, through the Supreme Court.
The mother is a dull, if not defective woman, who is expecting another child. Investigation of the father has revealed a long history of conflicting stories, aliases, court records and mental illness. The question of the religion of the children has come to be the stumbling block that has prevented appropriate placement or even planning for these three infants. The law requiring placement of children in accordance with their religion where practicable has been interpreted so that in many instances the best interest of the child has been scrutinized with less than ordinary concern. The law, however, cannot be interpreted so as to deny children both proper care and planning in the light of all the facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial