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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 1996

In re Josephine O.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Greene County, which granted the petitioner's application to declare the respondent's children permanently neglected and terminated her parental rights. The Greene County Department of Social Services (DSS) initiated the original neglect proceeding after finding the children left unsupervised in an unsanitary home with no edible food. Despite diligent efforts by DSS to reunite the family, including providing parenting classes, a parent aide, and substance abuse treatment recommendations, the respondent failed to cooperate, missing numerous appointments and failing to address her issues. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, concluding that DSS fulfilled its statutory duty and that the respondent failed to plan for her children's future, thereby supporting the termination of her parental rights.

Parental RightsPermanent NeglectDiligent EffortsFamily ReunificationSubstance AbuseParenting SkillsChild WelfareGreene CountyAppellate DecisionSocial Services Law
References
4
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
Jun 27, 2006

In re Kadiatou B.

This case concerns an appeal of an order from the Family Court, Bronx County, which dismissed a derivative neglect petition against respondent parents. The petition was based on a prior finding of child abuse in 2002, stemming from the 1999 death of their three-month-old baby, Kadiatou, due to blunt impact to the head and multiple skull fractures. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, finding that the prior abuse finding was inconclusive regarding the parents' direct role and was sufficiently remote in time. Furthermore, the court noted significant positive changes in the parents' behavior, their successful completion of parenting skills courses, individual psychotherapy, and continued engagement with family services. The Administration for Children's Services (ACS) failed to present specific evidence linking Kadiatou's injuries to intentional parental conduct or demonstrating a continued faulty understanding of parental duties.

Child NeglectChild AbuseDerivative NeglectParental DutiesChange in CircumstancesRes Ipsa LoquiturMedical Examiner FindingsHomicideSkull FracturesFamily Court Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Daniel AA.

This case is an appeal concerning a Family Court order that terminated parental rights due to permanent neglect. The respondents' children, James and Daniel, were placed in petitioner's custody after a finding of neglect. Despite the petitioner's diligent efforts to provide a service plan, including mental health, substance abuse counseling, and parenting classes, the respondents consistently failed to cooperate, resisted change, and denied the existence of problematic behaviors. The court concluded that the petitioner satisfied its statutory obligations under Social Services Law § 384-b, and the mother was capable of planning for the children's future. Given the respondents' unstable lifestyle, characterized by violence and marital separations, the Family Court's decision to terminate parental rights was affirmed, prioritizing the children's needs for consistency, affection, and a stable environment.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationDiligent EffortsFamily Court AppealChild WelfareSocial Services LawParental ResponsibilityDomestic ViolenceSubstance Abuse CounselingMental Health Counseling
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 1990

In re Mary S.

This is an appeal from an order terminating a father's parental rights to his daughter, Mary S., on the grounds of permanent neglect. The Family Court found the father failed to make diligent efforts to reunite with Mary, citing non-compliance with court-ordered therapy and housing requirements, despite maintaining contact and visitation. Mary S. had a history of neglect, initially placed in foster care in 1986, and was later found to be mildly retarded, eventually bonding with the foster parents who adopted her brother. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, rejecting claims of an unfair hearing and improper testimony, emphasizing that the Department of Social Services fulfilled its duty and termination was in Mary's best interest. The decision allowed Mary S. to be freed for adoption by her foster parents.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationChild NeglectFoster CareAdoptionFamily LawSocial ServicesAppellate DecisionChild WelfareDiligent Efforts
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of Lebron

This case involves an appeal concerning the permanent neglect of a child, Jason, placed in foster care in 1982 due to his parents' eviction and drug addiction. The Family Court found permanent neglect but dismissed the petitions, ruling the petitioner agency failed to demonstrate diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship. The appellate court affirmed the finding of permanent neglect, agreeing that the parents failed to plan for Jason's future or maintain regular contact. However, the court reversed the Family Court's finding on diligent efforts, concluding that the petitioner agency had, in fact, met its burden of proving diligent efforts despite the parents' chronic drug addiction and lack of cooperation. The court emphasized that an agency is not a guarantor of an uncooperative parent's success.

Permanent NeglectChild WelfareFoster CareParental RightsDiligent EffortsDrug AddictionRehabilitation ProgramsFamily Court AppealSocial Services LawParental Responsibility
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Timonthy B.

The case concerns a proceeding for the termination of parental rights based on permanent neglect. The Family Court's decision to dismiss the petition was reversed. The appellate court found that the petitioner had established a prima facie case of diligent efforts to encourage the parental relationship and that the parent failed to maintain contact or plan for the children's future, contrary to Social Services Law § 384-b. Additionally, the Family Court erred in applying social worker-client privilege under CPLR 4508 to limit witness testimony. The matter was remitted to Monroe County Family Court for further proceedings.

Termination of Parental RightsPermanent NeglectParental RightsSocial Services LawCPLRFamily Court ActPrima FacieDiligent EffortsParental RelationshipWitness Testimony
References
6
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Aniya L.

This appeal concerns two Family Court orders that adjudicated respondent's children as permanently neglected and terminated her parental rights. The respondent, the mother of two children, challenged the Family Court's findings and decisions on several grounds. The appellate court found no error in the Family Court's procedural rulings concerning the attorney for the children. It also concluded that the petitioner diligently worked to strengthen the family bond, providing various services tailored to the respondent's mental health issues, parenting deficiencies, and unstable housing. Ultimately, the court upheld the termination of parental rights, determining that the respondent failed to adequately plan for her children's future and that termination was in the children's best interests, given their stable preadoptive foster home.

Parental Rights TerminationPermanent NeglectDiligent EffortsBest Interests of ChildrenFamily Court ProcedureAttorney for Child RoleMental Health IssuesParenting SkillsDomestic Violence ConcernsUnstable Housing
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Curtis B.

A neglect proceeding was initiated by a worker of the Department of Welfare of the City of New York against parents, alleging severe neglect and abuse of their child, Ronnie, citing multiple injuries and lack of care. The petitioner moved for a protective order to vacate interrogatories served by the respondents, arguing against the applicability of disclosure provisions in neglect cases under the Family Court Act. The court, citing CPLR provisions via Family Court Act section 165, denied the petitioner's motion to vacate, asserting its power to apply disclosure to ensure respondents are adequately informed of charges. However, the court found the interrogatories too broad and issued a protective order, modifying them to a limited scope, with a deadline for service.

Neglect proceedingChild abuseProtective orderInterrogatoriesDisclosureFamily Court ActCPLRProcedural lawDiscoveryChild welfare
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,402 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