24.03.2013 Views

Lawyers Manual - Unified Court System

Lawyers Manual - Unified Court System

Lawyers Manual - Unified Court System

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

The Law Regarding Child Welfare and Domestic Violence<br />

6<br />

Representing Domestic Violence Victims in<br />

Child Welfare Cases<br />

by Jill M. Zuccardy<br />

For domestic violence victims who face child neglect proceedings, the<br />

<strong>Court</strong> of Appeals decision in Nicholson v Scoppetta1 changed radically the legal<br />

landscape in which they defend themselves against charges that they have failed<br />

to protect their children from harm. Prior to 2004, the decisions of the different<br />

appellate divisions regarding issues of domestic violence in child welfare cases<br />

could not be harmonized. The confusion traced its origins to the 1998 decision<br />

in In re Lonell J., 2 in which the Appellate Division, First Department, held that<br />

expert testimony is not necessary to establish that exposure to domestic violence<br />

causes harm to children rising to the level of impairment under the statute<br />

governing child neglect. Some, but not all, lower courts seemed to interpret In<br />

re Lonell J. as holding that a child who witnesses domestic violence per se<br />

suffers harm sufficient to support a finding of neglect against the victim-parent<br />

as well the perpetrator-parent. 3<br />

In October, 2004, the New York <strong>Court</strong> of Appeals issued its landmark<br />

decision in Nicholson v Scoppetta. 4 The <strong>Court</strong> held that a parent may not be<br />

charged with neglect solely on the grounds that the parent is a victim of domestic<br />

violence and the child has been exposed to the violence. The <strong>Court</strong> also held<br />

that a presumption of emotional harm is impermissible by law because not every<br />

child exposed to domestic violence suffers harm or even a risk of harm as<br />

defined by the neglect statute. The <strong>Court</strong> made clear that In re Lonell J. stood<br />

only for the proposition that expert testimony is not required to prove that a<br />

child exposed to domestic violence has suffered harm under the statute but that<br />

it did not dispose with the requirement that emotional harm be proven.<br />

The <strong>Court</strong> further emphasized that even if emotional harm to a child from<br />

exposure to domestic violence is proven by particularized evidence, a battered

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!