Matter of V.B. (Marcia C.--Richard B.)
Docket Docket No. N9766/24|Appeal No. 6200|Case No. 2025-02272|
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Family
- Disposition
- Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02441
- Docket numbers
- Docket NoN9766/24Appeal No6200Case No2025-02272
Appeal from a Family Court order determining the mother abused and neglected her child
Summary
The Appellate Division reviewed a Family Court order that found a mother abused and neglected her child. The court unanimously vacated the abuse finding against the mother but affirmed the neglect finding. The court concluded the father, who lived with the family, inflicted excessive corporal punishment and sexual abuse, and the mother knew or should have known and failed to protect the child. The appellate court also upheld a neglect finding based on the mother's threat to the child with a knife, by conforming the pleadings to the proof, but found the evidence insufficient to support a finding that the mother committed abuse.
Issues Decided
- Whether the Family Court's finding that the mother abused the child was supported by the evidence
- Whether the Family Court's finding that the mother neglected the child was supported by a preponderance of the evidence
- Whether the court properly conformed the pleadings to include the mother's post-petition threat with a knife as a basis for neglect
Court's Reasoning
The court held that credible testimony established the father committed excessive corporal punishment and sexual abuse, and that the mother knew or should have known and failed to protect the child, supporting neglect. The mother's speculation that the child fabricated allegations was unsupported. The court exercised discretion to conform the pleadings to include the mother's post-petition knife threat because she had notice and was not prejudiced, so that incident independently supported neglect. However, the evidence did not support a finding that the mother herself committed abuse, so that determination was vacated.
Authorities Cited
- Matter of Jonathan M. [Gilda L.]139 AD3d 438 (1st Dept 2016)
- Matter of M.R. [Manuel R.]233 AD3d 454 (1st Dept 2024)
- Matter of Angelica A. [Amalia R.]200 AD3d 443 (1st Dept 2021)
Parties
- Appellant
- Marcia C.
- Respondent
- Richard B.
- Petitioner-Respondent
- Administration for Children's Services
- Attorney
- Andrew J. Baer
- Attorney
- Muriel Goode-Trufant (Susan Paulson of counsel)
- Attorney
- Dawne A. Mitchell (Judith Stern of counsel)
- Judge
- E. Grace Park
Key Dates
- Family Court order date
- 2025-03-27
- Appellate Division decision date
- 2026-04-23
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult counsel about further appeal
If the mother or ACS wishes to challenge the decision (the neglect finding or the vacatur of the abuse finding), they should consult counsel promptly about seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and calendar applicable deadlines.
- 2
Comply with Family Court orders regarding custody and services
Parties should follow any remaining Family Court directives concerning custody, placement, and required services for the child while considering the appellate result.
- 3
Address protective and safety measures
Given the upheld neglect finding related to the father's conduct, ACS and caretakers should continue or institute safety plans, supervised contact, or other protective steps to safeguard the child.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed that the mother neglected the child but vacated the court's prior finding that she abused the child.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The primary parties affected are the mother (Marcia C.), the father (Richard B.), the child, and the Administration for Children's Services, which sought custody and protective action.
- What does vacating the abuse finding mean?
- It means the court removed the formal finding that the mother committed abuse because the evidence did not support that conclusion, though the neglect finding remains.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Yes, a party may seek further review, such as leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, subject to applicable time limits and standards for appeal.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Matter of V.B. (Marcia C.--Richard B.) - 2026 NY Slip Op 02441 Matter of V.B. (Marcia C.--Richard B.) 2026 NY Slip Op 02441 April 23, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department In the Matter of V.B., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Marcia C., Respondent-Appellant, Richard B., Respondent, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent. Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026 Docket No. N9766/24|Appeal No. 6200|Case No. 2025-02272| Before: Webber, J.P., González, Mendez, O'Neill Levy, Hagler, JJ. Andrew J. Baer, New York, for appellant. Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan Paulson of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the child. Order, Family Court, Bronx County (E. Grace Park, J.), entered on or about March 27, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, determined that respondent mother abused and neglected the subject child, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the finding of abuse against her, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of the evidence that the father of the subject child, who resided with the mother and the child, inflicted excessive corporal punishment on the child and subjected the child to sexual abuse, and that the mother knew or should have known but failed to take any steps to protect the child ( see Matter of Jonathan M. [Gilda L.] , 139 AD3d 438, 438 [1st Dept 2016]; see also Matter of M.R. [Manuel R.] , 233 AD3d 454, 455 [1st Dept 2024]; Matter of Angelica A. [Amalia R.] , 200 AD3d 443, 444 [1st Dept 2021]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's determination that the child's testimony recounting the abuse by her father was credible ( see Matter of Angelica A. , 200 AD3d at 444). The mother's vague speculation that the child made up the allegations so that the child could be placed in foster care in the child's friend's home was not supported by the record. The court also providently exercised its discretion in conforming the pleadings to the proof in finding that the mother's act of threatening the child with a knife after the child was released to her custody was sufficient in itself for a finding of neglect. While the incident occurred after the filing of the petition, the mother was on notice about it as it was the basis for the child's removal and remand to ACS custody, and the mother was not prejudiced in any way because she "was afforded a sufficient opportunity to defend against the allegations" ( Matter of Jada W. [Ketanya B.] , 104 AD3d 861, 861 [2d Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 862 [2013]; see Matter of Pandora S.D. [Isabelle D.] , 231 AD3d 575, 575-576 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 901 [2025]). As argued by the mother and the attorney for the child, a finding of abuse against the mother was not supported by the evidence. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 23, 2026