Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Matter of Tereza R. (Jose A.)
Citation: 2021 NY Slip Op 06358Docket: 2021-01206
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 16, 2021; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In the Matter of Tereza R. Jose A. (2021 NY Slip Op 06358), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed a Family Court order from January 29, 2021, which found that the father neglected his child. The case stemmed from a proceeding initiated by the Administration for Children's Services (ACS) on June 13, 2018, alleging neglect based on actions that occurred in the summer of 2017. Concurrently, criminal charges were filed against the father for offenses including criminal sexual act and endangering the welfare of a child, with the child as the alleged victim. The father was subsequently indicted and pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of a child, admitting to actions likely to harm the child's welfare. ACS sought summary judgment regarding the father's neglect, which was partially granted by the Family Court, allowing a hearing to determine the father's parental status. The court found sufficient grounds for neglect but did not grant summary judgment on the abuse allegation. The appellate court upheld the Family Court's decision, confirming the father's neglect and ordering him to engage in a sex offender program. No costs or disbursements were awarded in the appeal. The court confirmed the father's parentage and found him guilty of neglect based on a previous determination of neglect. A criminal conviction can have collateral estoppel effects in Family Court if the same issue was resolved in the criminal case and the defendant had a fair opportunity to litigate it. The father's conviction for endangering the welfare of a child was linked to the same acts as those in the Family Court proceedings. He did not demonstrate any triable issue regarding the identity of the issues or his opportunity to litigate them in the criminal case. A minor discrepancy in the dates of the incidents did not create a triable issue of fact. Consequently, the Family Court appropriately granted summary judgment in favor of the Administration for Children's Services (ACS) on the neglect issue. The court dismissed the father's argument against participating in a sex offender program, emphasizing that the child's best interests are paramount in dispositional hearings. The court considered the father's capacity to supervise the child and potential future risks of abuse. Given the father's guilty plea related to allegations of sexual abuse, the Family Court's requirement for him to engage in a sex offender program was deemed a prudent exercise of discretion. Other arguments raised by the father were also found to be without merit.