MATTER OF JAIME A., 173 A.D.3d 503 (2019)
Court: Supreme Court of New York
Number: innyco20190613308
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 13, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 13, 2019
Summary: The court providently exercised its discretion in imposing a period of supervised probation, which was the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant's needs and the community's need for protection ( see Matter of Katherine W., 62 N.Y.2d 947 [1984]). In light of the seriousness of the underlying act of animal cruelty, appellant's need for continuing mental health and drug treatment, appellant's mother's professed inability to adequately supervise him, and appellant'
Summary: The court providently exercised its discretion in imposing a period of supervised probation, which was the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant's needs and the community's need for protection ( see Matter of Katherine W., 62 N.Y.2d 947 [1984]). In light of the seriousness of the underlying act of animal cruelty, appellant's need for continuing mental health and drug treatment, appellant's mother's professed inability to adequately supervise him, and appellant's..
More
The court providently exercised its discretion in imposing a period of supervised probation, which was the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant's needs and the community's need for protection (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 N.Y.2d 947 [1984]). In light of the seriousness of the underlying act of animal cruelty, appellant's need for continuing mental health and drug treatment, appellant's mother's professed inability to adequately supervise him, and appellant's history of poor school attendance, an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal would not have provided sufficient supervision.
Source: Leagle
