## Facts

- Two young children lived with their parents in a Bronx shelter.
- A child protective agency removed the children and filed neglect petitions alleging medical neglect and domestic violence in the home.
- At the fact-finding hearing, caseworkers testified they observed unsanitary conditions and illness indicators, including a child smelling of urine, a child feverish and vomiting, and a child lying in a crib covered with vomit.
- A caseworker testified the mother reported repeated physical abuse and forced sex by the father and declined referrals to a battered women’s shelter.
- A later caseworker became involved after a police report and learned the father had been arrested for hitting the mother.
- The parents offered alternative explanations for the conditions and disputed that their conduct met the neglect standard.

## Issues

1. Whether a pattern of domestic violence between parents occurring in the presence of young children can establish neglect under Family Court Act § 1012 without expert testimony proving actual emotional harm.
2. Whether Family Court Act § 1036(a)(viii) requires expert testimony to prove impairment or imminent danger of impairment of a child’s emotional condition.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the neglect petitions.
- The court held that domestic violence in the children’s presence may, by itself and without expert testimony, support a neglect finding where impairment or imminent danger of impairment is shown.
- The court remanded for further proceedings under the correct legal standard, which does not impose an expert-testimony prerequisite.

## Legal Principles

- Under Family Court Act § 1012(f)(i), neglect may be found when a child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of impairment due to a parent’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of care.
- Domestic violence in the home, particularly when recurrent and witnessed by children, can constitute conduct placing a child in imminent danger of impairment within § 1012’s scope.
- Family Court Act § 1036(a)(viii) permits, but does not require, expert testimony to prove emotional impairment; a court may rely on circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences from the record.
- A trial court errs by treating the absence of expert proof as a categorical bar to finding neglect based on children’s exposure to domestic violence.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that repeated domestic violence witnessed by young children can satisfy New York’s neglect standard based on impairment or imminent danger of impairment, and that expert testimony is not a mandatory condition for proving emotional harm or risk under the Family Court Act.


In re Lonell J., 673 N.Y.S.2d 116 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1998)