CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. E2004-01216-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision

State v. David H.

The dissenting opinion by Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr. addresses the denial of appointed counsel in dependent and neglect proceedings involving parents David H. and Mary Ellen H. While concurring with the majority's legal principles on the right to counsel, the dissent argues that the parents' irresponsible actions and omissions justified the trial court's decisions to deny appointed counsel. The trial court, presided over by Judge Harris and Judge Davies, found the parents not indigent based on their income and lack of diligence in seeking legal representation. The dissenting judge concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and would have affirmed its decisions to deny the requests for appointed counsel.

dependent neglectindigencyright to counselaffidavit of indigencyabuse of discretionchild support obligationappellate reviewtrial court discretionprocedural due processattorney appointment
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07357
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2017

Matter of Kathleen NN. (Dennis NN.)

This case involves three neglect proceedings initiated by the Sullivan County Department of Family Services and the Attorney for the Child against Dennis NN. (father), Justin EE. (mother's boyfriend), and Angelica FF. (mother) concerning Kathleen NN., an alleged neglected child. The Family Court of Sullivan County initially dismissed all three petitions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the dismissal concerning Dennis NN., finding that his actions of dropping the child during an altercation placed her in imminent danger of harm, thus granting the neglect petition against him and remitting the matter for a dispositional hearing. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissals against Justin EE. and Angelica FF., concluding that there was insufficient evidence to prove neglect or that Justin EE. was a legal custodian at the time of the incident, and that the mother's conduct did not demonstrate imminent danger to the child.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActImminent DangerParental ResponsibilitySafety Plan Non-ComplianceAppellate DivisionChild CustodyPreponderance of EvidencePhysical AltercationChild Protective Report
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Angelo AA.

This appeal concerns a Family Court order that adjudicated two children, Angelo AA. and Ryan CC., as permanently neglected and terminated respondent's parental rights. The respondent mother appealed this decision, arguing that the petitioner agency failed to make diligent efforts toward reunification. The appellate court found that the petitioner did make diligent efforts, providing services for respondent's aggressive behavior, parenting skills, drug dependency, and domestic violence issues. Despite completing some programs, the respondent continued to struggle with substance abuse, maintaining healthy relationships, and consistent mental health counseling. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that the children were permanently neglected and parental rights were appropriately terminated, also upholding the preclusion of an expert witness.

Parental Rights TerminationPermanent NeglectDiligent EffortsFamily ReunificationSubstance AbuseDomestic ViolenceParenting SkillsMental Health CounselingExpert Witness PreclusionDue Process
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2006

In re Ian H.

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order adjudicating a respondent's children neglected. The respondent, a substitute day-care worker, was accused of sexually abusing female children attending a day-care center operated by his wife. Petitioner initiated a neglect proceeding, alleging derivative neglect of the respondent's twin sons based on his inappropriate conduct with other children. The Family Court found that the respondent neglected three children by sexually abusing them, demonstrating a fundamental defect in parenting that derivatively neglected his own children. The Appellate Division affirmed this finding, concluding that out-of-court statements of the abused children were properly admitted and sufficiently corroborated, and the Family Court appropriately exercised its discretion in not compelling a child's testimony.

Child NeglectDerivative NeglectSexual AbuseFamily Court Act Article 10Out-of-court StatementsCorroborationHearsay ExceptionJudicial DiscretionParental JudgmentChild Testimony
References
13
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06564
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Matter of Raivyn BB. (Courtney BB.)

This case concerns appeals from Family Court orders adjudicating Raivyn BB. a neglected child due to alleged parental drug use by mother Courtney BB. and father Kip AA. The child tested positive for methamphetamines after birth, prompting neglect petitions. The Appellate Division reversed the neglect findings against both parents. The court found that the evidence did not establish a direct causal link between the mother's methamphetamine use and the child's impairment, noting potential withdrawal symptoms from prescribed Subutex. Furthermore, the father's conduct, including hostility or refusal to sign a birth certificate, was not deemed to constitute neglect, and no evidence showed his knowledge of the mother's drug use. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

Neglected ChildParental Drug UseChild ToxicologyMethamphetamineSubutexFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewCausative ConnectionImpairment of ChildMinimum Degree of Care
References
15
Case No. N2361-72
Regular Panel Decision

In re Gigi B.

The case concerns a neglect proceeding against Patricia B. for the alleged neglect of her infant, Gigi, due to the mother's drug addiction. The Bureau of Child Welfare subpoenaed records from the New York State Narcotic Addiction Control Commission regarding Patricia B.'s rehabilitation, which both the commission and the mother argued were protected by statutory privilege under the Mental Hygiene Law. The court determined that any state privilege was waived by the commission's communication of Patricia B.'s drug test results and that the Family Court Act, specifically Section 1038, superseded the Mental Hygiene Law due to its more recent enactment and focus on child protection. Emphasizing the paramount importance of the child's due process rights, the court concluded that the privilege established by the Mental Hygiene Law, similar to other professional privileges, is overridden in child abuse and neglect situations. Consequently, the court denied the motion to quash the subpoena and overruled the objection to the introduction of the records, ordering them to be opened for review.

NeglectChild WelfareDrug AddictionStatutory PrivilegeFamily Court ActMental Hygiene LawWaiver of PrivilegeSubpoenaConfidentialityDue Process
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1992

In re Jamie C.

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order in Broome County, which granted a petitioner's application to adjudicate the respondents' children as abused and/or neglected. The Family Court had found the father, James D., sexually and physically abused his daughter Jamie C. and neglected all four children, while the mother, Barbara C., sexually abused Jamie and neglected all four. On appeal, the finding of sexual abuse against the mother was reversed due to insufficient corroborating evidence and Jamie C.'s conflicting sworn testimony. However, the findings of the father's sexual and physical abuse, and both parents' neglect stemming from chronic alcohol abuse and violent behavior, were affirmed based on Jamie's credible testimony and other evidence presented.

Family LawChild AbuseChild NeglectSexual AbusePhysical AbuseAlcohol AbuseCredibility of TestimonyCorroboration of EvidenceAppellate ReviewFamily Court Act
References
1
Case No. 04-24-00516-CV & 04-24-00521-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2025

B&T Dependable Services, LLC and Bernell Gardener v. Edward Santos

Edward Santos, performing work for B&T Dependable Services, LLC, was injured in a truck accident. B&T had workers' compensation coverage, and Texas Mutual Insurance Company provided Santos benefits. Santos subsequently sued B&T and Bernell Gardener for negligence, disputing his employment status. An administrative law judge (ALJ) previously ruled Santos was an employee, and Santos did not appeal this decision. Appellants filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Labor Code and the doctrine of election of remedies barred Santos's lawsuit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction, citing recent Supreme Court precedent that the Division of Workers' Compensation does not hold exclusive jurisdiction over negligence claims not predicated on entitlement to benefits. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion for summary judgment, concluding that appellants failed to conclusively prove every element of their affirmative defense of election of remedies.

Workers' Compensation LawNegligence ClaimExclusive Remedy DoctrineElection of RemediesSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate Court ReviewSummary Judgment DenialTexas Labor CodeEmployment Status DisputeAdministrative Remedies Exhaustion
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Camara R.

This appeal concerns the dismissal of a neglect petition against parents whose infant son, Antonio, twice suffered from nonorganic failure to thrive. Antonio showed significant weight gain during hospitalizations but lost weight at home, despite prior parental instructions. Evidence presented included the parents' resistance to medical advice, unsanitary home conditions, and the father's substance abuse. The Family Court initially found insufficient evidence of neglect, but the appellate court reversed, concluding that the petitioner had established a prima facie case of both direct neglect of Antonio and derivative neglect of his siblings. The matter was remitted to the Family Court for further proceedings.

NeglectFamily Court Act Article 10Failure to ThriveChild WelfareParental MisconductAppellate ReviewPrima Facie EvidenceChild Protective ServicesMedical NeglectSubstance Abuse
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State ex rel. Dunn v. Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children

Maureen M. Dunn filed a writ of habeas corpus to regain custody of "Baby Girl" Dunn, born April 6, 1986, after executing a surrender for adoption to Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children (CHB) on May 1, 1986. The child was placed with prospective adoptive parents, John and Mary Doe, on April 10, 1986. Dunn attempted to revoke her surrender on May 21, 1986, within the 30-day period stipulated by Social Services Law § 384(5). The adoptive parents moved to dismiss or transfer the case, arguing against Supreme Court jurisdiction. The court retained jurisdiction and, following hearings, addressed Dunn's claims of fraud, duress, or coercion in the surrender's execution, which it ultimately denied despite concerns about CHB's procedures and a witness's credibility. The court also clarified the application of Social Services Law §§ 383(6) and 384(5) regarding the natural mother's rights post-surrender, ruling that Dunn lost her presumption of superiority once the child was placed in an adoptive home, requiring the custody determination to be based solely on the child's best interests. Considering the stability, financial security, and family ties of the adoptive parents versus the natural mother's temporary employment, uncertain support from the natural father, and past substance use during pregnancy, the court found it in the child's best interest to remain with the adoptive parents and be adopted by them.

AdoptionChild CustodyHabeas CorpusSurrender of Parental RightsBest Interests of the ChildParental RightsSocial Services LawRevocation of SurrenderFraudDuress
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 905 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational