Lonell J., In re
| Decision Date | 19 May 1998 |
| Citation | 673 N.Y.S.2d 116,242 A.D.2d 58 |
| Parties | , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 4814, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 4815 In re LONELL J., et al., Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc. Lonell J., et al., Respondents-Respondents, Nicholas Scoppetta, etc., Petitioner-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Joanne A. Zervos, for Respondent-Respondent Lonell J.
Jay A. Maller, for Respondent-Respondent Nicole B.,
Stuart D. Smith, of counsel (Larry A. Sonnenshein, on the brief, Paul A. Crotty, attorney), for Petitioner-Appellant,
Marcia Egger, of counsel (Jane M. Spinak, Law Guardian, The Legal Aid Society, Juvenile Rights Division) on behalf of the children.
Before MILONAS, J.P., and ROSENBERGER, NARDELLI, WALLACH and RUBIN, JJ.
The issue in this case is whether a pattern of domestic violence between respondent parents in the presence of their children may be sufficient to establish neglect under Family Court Act (FCA) § 1012, absent expert testimony that the parents' strife has caused specific harm to the children.
Respondents Lonell J. ("the father") and Nicole B. ("the mother") are the parents of Latisha (born 5/14/93) and Lonell, Jr. (born 6/15/95). When the incidents giving rise to this action took place, the family lived in a Tier 2 Shelter in the Bronx. The Administration for Children's Services (ACS) removed the children from the parents' home on January 11, 1996, and they have been in foster care since then. Neglect petitions were filed against the parents on January 16, 1996, based on alleged instances of medical neglect and of domestic violence in which the father beat the mother in front of the children. The petition also alleged that the parents had failed to attend the counseling prescribed by the Child Welfare Administration.
A fact-finding hearing was held over four days in December 1996. Two ACS caseworkers presented evidence that the father habitually abused the mother and also testified to their observations of the children's poor health and unsanitary condition. Caseworker Darlyn Shepard stated that when she first visited respondents in December 1995, the children smelled of urine, Lonell, Jr. was feverish and vomiting and Latisha was wearing a diaper that needed changing. On several occasions, the mother complained to Shepard that the father was hitting her and forcing her to have intercourse with him. However, she refused to follow Shepard's advice that she go with the children to a battered women's shelter. Shepard then ceased working with the family due to the father's objections.
ACS caseworker Nancy Sanchez testified that she began working with the family when she received a 2221 report from the Police Department that the parents had been forced to take Lonell, Jr. to the hospital. She learned from Shepard that the father had been arrested for hitting the mother. When Sanchez visited the family on January 10, 1996, Lonell, Jr. was lying in his crib covered with vomit. The mother admitted that the father hit her, but she said she deserved it. Sanchez later discovered that the mother had left the family briefly to go to live with her mother, but had then returned.
Other evidence at the hearing indicated that the police had been called on several occasions over a one-month period due to the parents' fights: on November 29 and 30, 1995; on December 26 and 27, 1995; and on January 4 and 5, 1996. The January visit resulted in the father's arrest. An order of protection was issued against him on January 6. The father denied that these events had occurred, but the mother admitted it, though she tried to minimize the extent of the violence.
The parents offered alternate explanations for the children's allegedly sickly and unkempt condition. Lonell, Jr. was said to be suffering from an illness that made it hard for him to keep food down. The parents stated that they had taken him to the doctor several times for this condition. As for Latisha's diaper, they said that the caseworker had come early in the morning, before the parents had a chance to change the diaper from the night before.
The hearing court concluded that the petitioner had failed to prove medical neglect. While the court believed that the parents were not credible as to the extent of the fighting, it refused to find emotional neglect on this basis. The court's position was that until the Legislature amended Family Court Act § 1012 to make domestic violence between parents a per se act of neglect, expert testimony was necessary to establish that these children had been traumatized by witnessing their parents' fights. Accordingly, it dismissed the petition. We find that this was error.
The hearing court's interpretation of Family Court Act § 1012 was unnecessarily narrow, especially in light of the legislative pronouncements on domestic violence that the hearing court itself cited in its supplemental opinion (Matter of Latisha J. and Lonell J., NYLJ, April 16, 1997, p. 28). Family Court Act § 1012(f)(i) defines a "neglected child" as one "whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired" by the parent's failure to exercise minimal care. The statute enumerates various examples of neglectful behavior (e.g., parental drug abuse, failure to provide food or medical treatment), but also states that in addition to these examples, a finding of neglect can be based on "any other acts of a similarly serious nature requiring the aid of the court" (Family Court Act § 1012[f][i][B] ).
It appears that the hearing court mistakenly read Family Court Act § 1012 according to the principle of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, ignoring the plain language of § 1012(f)(i)(B), whose catch-all provision (quoted supra ) clearly contemplates that the instances of neglectful behavior mentioned therein are not an exclusive list. The statute's goal of protecting children from all types of dangerous parental misconduct would not be well served by an interpretation requiring a higher burden of proof as to any type of neglect not so enumerated.
Moreover, nothing in § 1012 itself requires expert testimony, as opposed to other convincing evidence of neglect. In fact, Family Court Act § 1046(a)(viii),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nicholson v. Scoppetta
... ... See Matter of James MM, 294 A.D.2d 630, 740 N.Y.S.2d 730, 732 (2002); Matter of Carlos M., 293 A.D.2d 617, 741 N.Y.S.2d 82, 84 (2002); In re Lonell J., 242 A.D.2d 58, 673 N.Y.S.2d 116, 117-18 (1998). Several opinions of the Appellate Division seem to proceed directly from the factual premise that the child witnessed domestic violence to the conclusion that removal is appropriate, thereby at least suggesting that they presume as a matter of ... ...
-
Nicholson v. Scoppetta
... ... See ... Matter of James "MM," 740 N.Y.S.2d 730, 732 (App. Div. 2002); Matter of Carlos M., 741 N.Y.S.2d 82, 84 (App. Div. 2002); In re Lonell J., 673 N.Y.S.2d 116, 117-18 (App. Div. 1998). Several opinions of the Appellate Division seem to proceed directly from the factual premise that the child witnessed domestic violence to the conclusion that removal is appropriate, thereby at least suggesting that they presume as a matter of law ... ...
-
In re Jubilee S.
... ... Something more substantial is required (see, e.g., In re Lonell J., 242 A.D.2d 58, 673 N.Y.S.2d 116 [1st Dept.1998] [repeated vomiting, soiled bedding, poor health, eating 35 N.Y.S.3d 650 problems]; In re Theresa "CC", 178 A.D.2d 687, 576 N.Y.S.2d 937 [3d Dept.1991] [behavioral problems, anxiety, bed-wetting, rebellion, withdrawal]; but see Matter of Madison ... ...
-
In re KLS, C-03-12.
... ... Kurtz, Note, Protecting New York's Children: An Argument for the Creation of a Rebuttable Presumption Against Awarding a Spouse Abuser Custody of a Child, 60 Albany L.Rev. 1345, 1351, n 45 (1997)) ... In re Lonell J., 242 A.D.2d 58, 673 N.Y.S.2d 116 (A.D. 1 Dept.1998). The law review article cited by the New York court describes scientific support for the proposition that witnessing abuse between parents has a profound negative impact on children: ... Studies have shown that children who witness domestic ... ...