## Facts

- A class of battered mothers and their children challenged a child-protective agency practice of charging the mothers with neglect and removing children based solely on the children’s exposure to domestic violence committed against the mothers.
- The suit was brought as a federal civil-rights class action, alleging interference with the mothers’ liberty interest in the care and custody of their children.
- A federal trial court found that children were routinely removed from nonviolent victim-mothers and enjoined the practice pending further proceedings.
- On appeal, a federal appellate court requested guidance on state child-protection law and certified questions to the state’s highest court concerning neglect, imminent danger, and removal standards in domestic-violence-related cases.
- The state high court addressed only the certified state-law questions governing neglect findings and removals in these circumstances.

## Issues

1. Whether a child is “neglected” when the sole allegation is that a battered parent allowed the child to witness domestic violence committed against the parent.
2. What constitutes “impairment” or “imminent danger of impairment” for neglect determinations based on exposure to domestic violence.
3. What legal standards govern removal decisions (including emergency removals) in domestic-violence-exposure cases.

## Decision

- The court answered that a battered parent’s permitting a child to witness domestic violence against the parent, without more, is insufficient to establish neglect under the Family Court Act.
- The court stated that neglect requires proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, of (1) actual impairment of the child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition, or imminent danger of such impairment, and (2) a causal link showing the harm (actual or threatened) resulted from the parent’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of care in supervision or guardianship.
- The court defined “imminent danger” as danger that is near or impending, not merely possible.
- The court recognized that exposure to domestic violence can cause emotional harm serious enough to satisfy the neglect standard and justify removal, but rejected any presumption of impairment or risk from witnessing alone.
- The court required an individualized, fact-specific assessment of the child’s condition and the parent’s conduct, including circumstances affecting the victim-parent’s options and resources.

## Legal Principles

- Exposure to domestic violence, standing alone, does not satisfy the statutory definition of neglect.
- Neglect is a two-part inquiry: (1) actual impairment or imminent danger of impairment, and (2) harm attributable to a failure to exercise a minimum degree of care.
- “Imminent” danger must be near or impending; speculative or merely possible harm is insufficient.
- The “minimum degree of care” standard measures conduct against what a reasonable and prudent parent would do under the circumstances, and does not demand ideal parenting.
- Removal based on domestic-violence exposure requires case-specific proof meeting the statutory criteria; there is no automatic removal rule and no presumption of emotional injury from witnessing.

## Conclusion

The court held that New York neglect and removal determinations in domestic-violence-exposure cases require individualized proof of actual or imminent impairment caused by a failure to exercise a minimum degree of care, and that witnessing domestic violence against a parent, without more, cannot alone justify a neglect finding or child removal.


Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357 (N.Y. 2004)