In re Dante M.
New York Court of Appeals
661 N.E.2d 138 (1995)

- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
Dante M. was born positive for cocaine. Dante was born premature and had low birth weight. Dante had to be placed in neonatal intensive care while in the hospital and required significant follow-up care. Dante’s mother (defendant) was observed doing drugs near the end of her pregnancy. Dante’s mother admitted smoking a cigarette prior to Dante’s birth that might have contained cocaine. Dante’s mother had two other children who were in the custody of Dante’s grandmother because of the mother’s drug problem. An initial petition by the Nassau County Department of Social Services (the agency) (plaintiff) to temporarily remove Dante from his mother’s care was denied. However, a subsequent child-protective petition filed by the agency on behalf of Dante and his older sister was granted, which allowed Dante’s mother to maintain custody of both children but under the agency’s supervision for a year. At the hearing, Dante’s mother did not testify herself. The family court ruled that the fact that Dante was born positive for cocaine alone was sufficient to find that both children were neglected. Dante’s mother appealed. The appellate court affirmed but based its holding on other evidence to support a finding of neglect of both children. The issue before the New York Court of Appeals was whether the fact that a newborn was born positive for cocaine alone was sufficient for a finding of neglect under New York’s Family Court Act.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Smith, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.