Matter of Elisha M.W. (Ronald W.)
2012 NY Slip Op 04765 [96 AD3d 863]
June 13, 2012
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 1, 2012


In the Matter of Elisha M.W. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Ronald W., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Rebekah J.W.Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Ronald W., Appellant. (Proceeding No.2.)

[*1]Edward E. Caesar, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F.X. Hart and TahirihM. Sadrieh of counsel), for respondent.

Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Claire V. Merkine of counsel),attorney for the children.

In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the fatherappeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Lim, J.), dated February10, 2011, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated October 25, 2010, made aftera hearing, finding that he abused Rebekah J.W. and derivately abused Elisha M.W., released thesubject children to the custody of the mother. The father's appeal from the order of dispositionbrings up for review the fact-finding order.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The right of a respondent parent "to be present at every stage of a Family Court Act article 10proceeding is not absolute, as such a proceeding is civil in nature" (Matter of Q.-L. H., 27 AD3d 738,739 [2006]; see Matter of DeshawnD.O. [Maria T.O.], 81 AD3d 961, 962 [2011]). "The Family Court must balance the dueprocess rights of an article 10 respondent with the mental and emotional well being of the child"(Matter of Q.-L. H., 27 AD3d at 739; see Matter of Deshawn D.O. [Maria T.O.],81 AD3d at 962). Here, the Family Court properly weighed the respective rights and interests ofthe father and the subject child Rebekah J.W., and thereafter providently exercised its discretionin permitting her to testify via closed-circuit television so that she did not have to testify in frontof her father (see Matter of Q.-L. H., 27 AD3d at 739). Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Austinand Miller, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.