TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Rasheda S.

In the Matter of Rasheda S. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Appellant Winston S.

In re Rasheda S., 183 A.D.2d 770 (1992)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 11, 1992
Citations
183 A.D.2d 770586 N.Y.S.2d 5221992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6728

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

—In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Auperin, J.), entered May 6, 1991, as, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition alleging that Rasheda S., the daughter of Winston S., was a neglected child.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the petition alleging neglect of Rasheda S. is reinstated, the allegation of neglect is found to be established, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a dispositional hearing.

In this child protective proceeding, the petitioner seeks to have Rasheda S., the daughter of Winston S., adjudged to be a neglected child. The basis for this relief was the fact that Winston sexually abused his 11-year-old stepdaughter. During the time that the sexual abuse occurred, Rasheda was four years old and resided with Winston and his stepdaughter. Also residing in the household was Winston’s wife, who is the mother of both children.

The Family Court adjudged that Winston’s stepdaughter is an abused child. The court, however, dismissed the petition that sought to adjudge his daughter a neglected child. We now reverse.

Contrary to the urging of both the petitioner and the Law Guardian, we decline to apply any per se rule to this case. Nevertheless, under the particular circumstances herein, we conclude that the conduct of Winston demonstrated a fundamental defect in his "understanding of the duties of parenthood” (Matter of Christina Maria C., 89 AD2d 855 ) which placed his daughter in imminent danger of substantial risk of *771 harm (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; § 1046 [a] [i]; cf., Matter of Cindy JJ., 105 AD2d 189 ). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 24 cases

View all citing references →
1993: 41995: 11997: 11998: 31999: 12001: 12002: 12004: 22005: 12006: 22007: 22011: 22012: 12013: 12020: 119932026peak 1993 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dutchess County Department of Social Services ex rel. Douglas E. v. Douglas E.191 A.D.2d 694 (1993)
  2. In re Jeremy H.193 A.D.2d 799 (1993)
  3. In re Shawndel M.33 A.D.3d 1006 (2006)
  4. In re Amanda LL.195 A.D.2d 708 (1993)
  5. In re Daniella HH.236 A.D.2d 715 (1997)
  6. In re Andrew B.-L.43 A.D.3d 1046 (2007)

Most recent

  1. In re Azayla K. L. (Aleisha L.)2020 NY Slip Op 05902
  2. In re William N.40 Misc. 3d 602 (N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. 2013)
  3. Rockland County Department of Social Services v. Moishe T.99 A.D.3d 915 (2012)
  4. In re Araynah B.34 Misc. 3d 566 (N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. 2011)
  5. In re Padmine M.84 A.D.3d 806 (2011)
  6. In re Andrew B.-L.43 A.D.3d 1046 (2007)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
In re Christina Maria C., 89 A.D.2d 855 (1982) 58
In re Cindy JJ., 105 A.D.2d 189 (1984) 23

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list