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 Jada J. (Reginald J.)
Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 06430Docket: Docket No. N9024/20 Appeal No. 16652 Case No. 2022-00674
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 14, 2022; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Family Court's order regarding the case of Jada J., a minor, where the Administration for Children's Services (ACS) was the petitioner and Reginald J. was the respondent father. The appeal, arising from a default judgment entered on December 21, 2021, specifically brought forth the denial of the father's motion to dismiss the neglect petition due to failure to establish a prima facie case. The court analyzed the evidence presented in favor of the ACS, concluding that the father neglected the child by failing to provide adequate care. For an extended period leading up to mid-May 2020, the child lived with the father in substandard conditions, sleeping on an air mattress in an unfurnished room with minimal food provisions. The father instructed the child to buy food but did not provide her with money to do so, thereby neglecting his parental responsibilities. In May 2020, while the child was staying with a friend, the father changed the apartment locks without providing her with keys and failed to ensure she had sufficient food, clothing, or shelter. Subsequently, the child moved in with her paternal aunt, and the father contributed only $400 towards her care, showing a lack of support and planning for her welfare. He also rejected the child's attempts to return home and did not engage in formulating a care plan with ACS. The court found the child's statements credible and corroborated by the father's admissions to caseworkers, thus supporting the finding of neglect. The father's remaining arguments were deemed unconvincing. The decision was entered on November 15, 2022.