Suffolk County Dept. of Social Services on Behalf of Aaron S., Matter of
| Decision Date | 01 May 1995 |
| Citation | 215 A.D.2d 395,626 N.Y.S.2d 227 |
| Parties | In the Matter of SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES on Behalf of AARON S. (Anonymous) a/k/a Aaron D. (Anonymous), et al., Respondent, Ellen S. (Anonymous), Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ciarelli & Dempsey, Melville (John L. Ciarelli, of counsel), for appellant.
Robert J. Cimino, County Atty., Central Islip (Gary L. Rosenthal, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and BALLETTA, COPERTINO and HART, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a "fact-finding order and order of disposition" (one paper) of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated March 24, 1993, as, after a fact-finding hearing, made an affirmative finding of neglect against her.
ORDERED that the "fact-finding order and order of disposition" is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant mother challenges the determination of the Family Court that she neglected her then-eight-year-old son Aaron by subjecting him to a continuous course of treatment for central apnea, an ailment he did not have. Rather, the Family Court found the appellant and her son presented a case of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (hereinafter MSP), a phenomenon in which the parent induces or fabricates a child's illness (see, Matter of Jessica Z., 135 Misc.2d 520, 521, 515 N.Y.S.2d 370).
We reject the appellant's contention that her care of Aaron, which included requiring him for approximately four years to sleep connected to a monitor, cannot be found to fall within the statutory definition of neglect because it does not constitute a failure or unwillingness to act, since the statute acknowledges that an adjudication of neglect may be based on parental acts of a "serious nature requiring the aid of the court" (Family Ct. Act § 1012[f][i][B]. Further, under the objective standard imposed in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, "[g]ood faith, good intentions, and even best efforts, are not, per se, defenses to a child protective petition" (Matter of Katherine C., 122 Misc.2d 276, 278, 471 N.Y.S.2d 216).
Even if the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing did not establish that the appellant induced Aaron's illness and caused him physical harm, the record plainly supports the Family Court's finding that as a consequence of Aaron's being subjected to unnecessary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Storck v. Suffolk County Dept. of Social Services, CV 97-2880.
...and affirmed by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. See In re Suffolk County Department of Social Services on behalf of Aaron A. (Anonymous) a/k/a/ Aaron D. (Anonymous), 215 A.D.2d 395, 626 N.Y.S.2d 227 (1995). Defendant Feldman was appointed as the law guardian for Aaron's sibling......
-
In re K.T.
... ... Agathen, Office of the Cook County Public Guardian, Chicago, for Minors-Appellees ... of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) ... Respondent now ... in a parenting capacity and neuro-psycho-social assessment and follow all recommendations of ... children, the court found that it was a matter of urgent and immediate necessity to remove the ... under the rules of evidence); In re Suffolk County Department of Social Services, 215 A.D.2d ... ...
-
Smith v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 94-2262
...and obligations of parenthood. Matter of Aaron S., 163 Misc.2d 967, 625 N.Y.S.2d 786 (N.Y.Fam.Ct.1993), affirmed, 215 A.D.2d 395, 626 N.Y.S.2d 227 (N.Y.App.Div.1995); DSS on Behalf of Moria I. v. Manuel S., 148 Misc.2d 988, 563 N.Y.S.2d 592 (N.Y.Fam.Ct.1990).2 Sec. 39.01(2), ...
-
Adoption of Keefe
...MSBP, see In the Matter of Aaron S., 163 Misc. 2d 967, 977 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1993), aff'd sub nom. In re Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs., 215 A.D.2d 395 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995), we decline to do likewise. The profile evidence was "clearly inadmissible, and, in other circumstances, might be......