Matter of Brianna J. (Anonymous); Matter of Kevin J. (Anonymous); Matter of Ricardo J. (Anonymous); Matter of Richard J. (Anonymous)
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Child protective law—whether a parent’s failure to provide proper supervision or guardianship constitutes neglect when children are repeatedly exposed to domestic violence.
After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found the petitioner failed to prove neglect and dismissed the petitions against the mother.
The dismissal of the neglect petitions and the finding of no neglect as to the mother.
By a preponderance of the evidence under Family Court Act § 1046(b)(i) [standard of proof in neglect proceedings is preponderance of the evidence] and § 1012(f)(i)(B) [defining neglect as impairment or imminent danger due to failure to exercise a minimum degree of care], the record showed the mother allowed the perpetrator of domestic violence to access the home despite an active temporary order of protection, resulting in incidents of violence in the children’s presence; a negative inference from the mother’s failure to testify further supported neglect.
Background
The Administration for Children's Services (ACS) commenced related Family Court Act article 10 neglect proceedings alleging the mother failed to provide proper supervision or guardianship. Evidence showed repeated incidents of domestic violence by Richecarde L. against the mother known to the children. In November 2023, despite an active temporary order of protection issued by the Criminal Court on the mother’s behalf, she allowed him into the home. In the children’s presence, he pushed the mother; he also pushed the oldest child who tried to intervene, and the second-oldest child witnessed him punch the mother. The mother had made multiple prior police reports alleging assault.
Lower Court Decision
Following a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court, Kings County, concluded the petitioner did not establish neglect by a preponderance of the evidence and dismissed the petitions against the mother (order dated February 13, 2025).
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversing on the facts, the Appellate Division reinstated the petitions, made a finding that the mother neglected the children, and remitted for a dispositional hearing. The court held the children’s physical or emotional conditions were impaired or in imminent danger of impairment due to the mother’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of care—specifically permitting the perpetrator to visit the home in violation of an order of protection and exposing the children to repeated domestic violence. The court also drew a negative inference from the mother’s failure to testify.
Legal Significance
Exposure to domestic violence can support a neglect finding when coupled with proof that a parent failed to exercise a minimum degree of care, such as permitting contact in violation of a protective order and allowing repeated violent incidents in the children’s presence. While witnessing abuse alone is insufficient under Nicholson v Scoppetta, concrete evidence of impairment or imminent risk, corroborated by circumstances and inferences from a parent’s failure to testify, satisfies the preponderance standard under Family Court Act § 1046(b)(i) [preponderance standard] and § 1012(f)(i)(B) [definition of neglect].
A parent’s decision to permit an abusive partner access to the home—especially in violation of an order of protection—and the children’s direct exposure to resulting violence can establish neglect by a preponderance of the evidence, warranting reversal of a no-neglect finding and a remand for disposition.