Matter of Douglas QQ.

Decision Date29 June 2000
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
PartiesIn the Matter of DOUGLAS QQ., a Child Alleged to be Abused and Neglected.<BR>GREENE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent;<BR>DOUGLAS PP., Appellant. (And Another Related Proceeding.)

Crew III, J.P., Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur.

Mugglin, J.

In February 1997, petitioner filed two petitions against respondent accusing him of abuse and neglect of his two children, Douglas QQ., born in 1982, and Adam PP., born in 1989. Respondent's first involvement with Family Court occurred in 1991 when it was alleged that he neglected these children for failing to follow up on medical appointments. In 1992, respondent was further charged with educational neglect, inadequate guardianship, excessive corporal punishment and substance abuse, all of which resulted in findings of neglect. In connection with these proceedings, respondent was ordered to submit to alcohol and drug evaluations and counseling for alcohol and substance abuse. The respondent ignored the orders of Family Court, failing to complete the required counseling. In October 1995, the children were returned to the mother as their sole custodian.

The petitions at issue were filed in February 1997 and allege a long history of neglect and abuse on respondent's part, along with further instances of excessive corporal punishment with respect to Douglas in 1996. The filing of these petitions was precipitated by two events. First, the children's mother was killed as a result of an automobile accident while riding in a vehicle operated by respondent. As a result of this incident, respondent was found guilty of an alcohol-related offense and found to be in violation of a Family Court order which prohibited him from imbibing alcoholic beverages. Second, in February 1997, petitioner received a report from the State Central Registry alleging that respondent was continuing to abuse alcohol and that he had physically abused Douglas on several occasions. This appeal stems from Family Court's determination that respondent abused and neglected Douglas and derivatively neglected Adam, and which continued custodial placement of Adam with his paternal uncle and his wife. On appeal, respondent challenges these determinations asserting that the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing was insufficient to support these findings.

We affirm. Initially, it is observed that Family Court's findings of abuse and neglect must be upheld if supported...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Cortland Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Clifton WW. (In re Alyssa WW.)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 2, 2013
    ...941 N.Y.S.2d 756 [2012];Matter of Tradale CC., 52 A.D.3d at 901–902, 859 N.Y.S.2d 288;see also [964 N.Y.S.2d 731]Matter of Douglas QQ., 273 A.D.2d 711, 713, 709 N.Y.S.2d 710 [2000];cf. Matter of Suzanne RR., 35 A.D.3d at 1013–1014, 826 N.Y.S.2d 785). ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with......
  • Matter of Simon and Cassandra B.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 8, 2001
    ...nauseated. Such conduct constitutes abuse (see, Family Ct Act 1012[e][i], [ii]; Matter of Gerald P., 275 A.D.2d 784, 785; Matter of Douglas QQ., 273 A.D.2d 711, 712-713; Matter of C. Children, 183 A.D.2d 767, 768). Moreover, the unrebutted evidence that respondent had previously administere......
  • In the Matter of Alexander M.Oneida County Dep't of Soc. Serv.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 1, 2011
    ...Matter of Carlena B., 61 A.D.3d 752, 877 N.Y.S.2d 197, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 703, 886 N.Y.S.2d 365, 915 N.E.2d 290; Matter of Douglas QQ., 273 A.D.2d 711, 713, 709 N.Y.S.2d 710; see generally Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Denise J., 87 N.Y.2d 73, 78–80, 637 N.Y.S.2d 666, ......
  • MATTER OF ENERGY ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK STATE v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 29, 2000

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT