MATTER OF YISRAEL R., 145 A.D.3d 491 (2016)
Court: Supreme Court of New York
Number: innyco20161208394
Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 08, 2016
Summary: The Family Court's finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct Act 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]). The evidence established that respondent incurred positive toxicology results for phencyclidine (PCP) on March 12 and March 31, 2013, in the last trimester of her pregnancy, just before the subject child was born on April 3, 2013, and that she has a prior history of PCP abuse ( Matter of Omarion T. [Isha M.], 128 A.D.3d 583 [1st Dept 2015]). Moreover,
Summary: The Family Court's finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct Act 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]). The evidence established that respondent incurred positive toxicology results for phencyclidine (PCP) on March 12 and March 31, 2013, in the last trimester of her pregnancy, just before the subject child was born on April 3, 2013, and that she has a prior history of PCP abuse ( Matter of Omarion T. [Isha M.], 128 A.D.3d 583 [1st Dept 2015]). Moreover, s..
More
The Family Court's finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]). The evidence established that respondent incurred positive toxicology results for phencyclidine (PCP) on March 12 and March 31, 2013, in the last trimester of her pregnancy, just before the subject child was born on April 3, 2013, and that she has a prior history of PCP abuse (Matter of Omarion T. [Isha M.], 128 A.D.3d 583 [1st Dept 2015]). Moreover, she previously failed to successfully complete a drug treatment program, but maintained, after twice testing positive for PCP during pregnancy, that she did not believe drug treatment would benefit her because she did not have a drug problem (Matter of Nasiim W. [Keala M.], 88 A.D.3d 452 [1st Dept 2011]; see also Matter of Chastity O.C. [Angie O.C.], 136 A.D.3d 407, 407-408 [1st Dept 2016]). In these circumstances, contrary to respondent's assertions, "the lack of actual harm to [the child] is irrevelant" (id. at 408; see also Matter of Cruz, 121 A.D.2d 901 [1st Dept 1986]).
Source: Leagle
