NP Rank:
NYS Supreme Court Decision speaks loudly on 'system of justice'
Op-Ed by Rhonda J Mangus
NowPublic Exclusive
The least-noticed cases sometimes say the most about the institution and our system of justice. They can also say the most about the rights of a mother to the care, education, and upbringing of her children, and the opinions of medical professionals, whose primary concern is that of the safety, health and welfare of children in education.
Last month, a ruling on a little-noticed NYS Supreme Court case represents a shameful chapter in NYS Supreme Court history that could have wide-ranging implications for mothers and medical professionals whose primary concern is that of the safety, health, and welfare of the child in education.
With no mainstream media attention, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in its decision In the Matter of RHONDA MANGUS against NIAGARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES and NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF CHILD & FAMILY SERVICES, denied this Author the relief requested in an Article 78 Proceeding.
It is unclear at this point why Justices Robert G. Hurlbutt, J.P., Nancy E. Smith, Eugene M. Fahey, and Edward D. Carni unanimously ignored the QUESTIONS PRESENTED by the Law Offices of Anthony S. Pecoraro in its Brief on behalf of this Author:
“ (1) Did Petitioner establish that the Appellant committed the alleged maltreatment, by a fair preponderance of the evidence pursuant to New York State Social Services Law Section 422? Answer: No
(2) Whether the Administrative Law Judge violated the Appellant’s Due Process Rights when they failed to advise and obtain, on the record, an intelligent or understanding waiver of the Appellant right to be afforded the opportunity of counsel? Answer: Yes”
What is clear in its Decision, Justices' Hurlbutt, Smith, Fahey, and Carni unanimously and completely not only ignore the QUESTIONS PRESENTED, they also ignore SUPPORTING EVIDENCE that establishes there is no basis for an indicated report of ‘Educational Neglect’ against this Author, including SUPPORTING EVIDENCE “…that there was, not one but two, doctor’s orders to keep the child out of school.” The record is complete with medical references to keep the child from attending school.” Appellant’s Exhibit 3 and 4. “At no time was the child kept out of school by the Appellant where there was no doctor’s directive or instruction to do so. Simply, there is no evidence introduced by NDSS that either Doctor removed their demand for home schooling and cleared or certified the child to return to school.”
In this case, SUPPORTING EVIDENCE clearly establishes that this mother did not maltreat her child. Yet, the Justices effectively construct a Memorandum and Order that portrays, erroneously, “…that respondent’s determination that respondent Niagara County Department of Social Services established by a fair preponderance of the evidence at the fair hearing that petitioner maltreated the subject child is supported by substantial evidence.”
The Justices’ refusal to acknowledge the QUESTIONS and SUPPORTING EVIDENCE in its final Decision speaks loudly of the system of justice in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This Author however will not be deterred by this 'set-back' in her endeavors to expose the truths of the 'system of justice' in New York State.
Read:
The Court's Decision, here.
NYS OCFS/NYSED Model Policy on Educational Neglect (2/2008)
NYS Senator Montgomery's Bill Number S5974 - An act to amend the social services law in relation to reports of educational neglect by school districts (6/2009)
Author’s Note: Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York, for Respondent’s New York State Office of Child and Family Services; Andrew D. Bing, Deputy Solicitor General and Zainab A. Chaudhry Assistant Solicitor General, of counsel; Jean Greinert, Administrative Law Judge; Richard E. Davidson, Bureau of Special Hearings NYS OCFS; Caseworker Robin Stroud, Niagara County Department of Social Services, North Tonawanda, NY; and Thomas W. Scirto, attorney for Niagara County Department of Social Services; Attorney Laura Wagner, of counsel.
Crowd Power
-
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States
Recommendations (107)
-
Simples
Caruaru, Pernambuco, Brazil -
Spydermonkey
huntsville, Alabama, United States -
Uwe Paschen
Narita, Chiba, Japan -
Barry ORegan
Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
-
Hugh Askew
Omaha, Nebraska, United States -
mudricky
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom -
Yuliya Talmazan
Burnaby, Canada -
Edmund Jenks
Los Angeles, California, United States -
Pat Garcia
La Paz, Mexico




Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (36)
at 12:06 on January 5th, 2010
Thanks for sharing your story with us here Rhonda - good for you for not giving up.
at 12:09 on January 5th, 2010
You are very welcome, Amy! Thank you for reading, commenting, and for the recommendation! Let there be no doubt--I will not give up:)!
Thanks, again!
at 12:51 on January 5th, 2010
Understandable, sara:) No worries:) You can visit The Standards and Truths of Equality, Fundamental Responsibilities of Parenting, to learn more about this case. I hope this helps. If not, please let me know.
Thank you for reading, questioning:) and for the recommendation!:)
at 15:17 on January 5th, 2010
Hi sara! The answer to your questions can be found at the same source under this posting: New York State School Report Cards 2005-2006.
at 12:42 on January 6th, 2010
sara, it occurred to me this morning that I failed to interpret your question properly:) -- I filed the above-referenced complaint of aggravated harassment on behalf of Michael who discovered a written death threat in his NTHS day planner (directed toward his sexual orientation/gender identity) with the City of North Tonawanda Police Department on October 12, 2005, and for the reason that Principal Fisher who, among other matters, is required by NYS laws to notify local law enforcement in matters such as these no later than the close of school that day, failed to do so.
I hope this answers your question:) If not, let me know!
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpokeat 12:20 on January 5th, 2010
Rhonda, thanks for sharing:) Interesting decision to say the least.
at 12:53 on January 5th, 2010
You are very welcome, ACP! Yes, very interesting (to say the least). Thank you for reading, commenting, and for the recommendation!
at 12:21 on January 5th, 2010
Pretty disgusting way to treat a parent's concerns. How on earth did they arrive at the conclusions stated in the end?
I don't see any way on earth I would sit back and accept that "inclement weather" or a "cold" were legitamate reasons for absence, but a death threat not.
A whole bunch of the very worst kind of people with issues regarding human rights and personal choice make a decision like that and get away with it?
Give me wishy-washy, loony left liberalism any day!
at 09:24 on January 9th, 2010
stejeb, BTW -- they will not get away with it. Acts of bias, and disregard for the law, the rules, and the facts will not go unnoticed. And, as I stated above, this 'set-back' will not deter me in my efforts to expose the truth of the 'system of justice' in New York State.
at 12:55 on January 5th, 2010
Thank you, stejeb! Your reading, commenting, and recommending this article is very much appreciated.
"How on earth did they arrive at the conclusions stated in the end?" Good question:). Unfortunately, I do not have the answer to it (yet).
at 13:05 on January 5th, 2010
Hi, Roy! A 'summary' is not available per se. However, please click on the link I provided to sara above. It's a very telling story.
Thanks for reading and the rec:)!
at 13:14 on January 5th, 2010
Rhonda: Correct me if I am wrong: Is this a matter of the appellate court denying your amended petition on appeal? If I read the highlighted documents correctly, you represented yourself pro se initially. If you didn't raise the issues in the original proceeding, it is understandable why the amended petition was denied. Courts generally do not entertain facts and circumstances not raised previously on appeal. Rules of procedure are clear, and it is always advisable to have legal counsel. Best of luck trying to remedy this unfortunate personal situation.
For the record: I'm not an attorney, and am not giving any legal advice.
at 13:49 on January 5th, 2010
Hi nanute! Then let me correct you:)! Initially I was pro se. However, in the matter of the Appellate Court, I am represented by legal counsel and, yes, the issue was raised in the Petition.
For the record: I am not an attorney either and am not giving any legal advice:)
Thanks for reading and commenting!
at 13:18 on January 5th, 2010
Wow, thanks for this personal and fascinating post, and very awesome and admirable your courageous and fighting spirit! These are the fights that make life worth living! Bravo, or shall I say, Brava to you. Keep us well posted as to future developments!!! Would recommend twice if possible!
at 13:36 on January 5th, 2010
You are very welcome, smk! I will keep everyone posted! Thank you for reading, your compliment, and for the rec!
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Greg s ichilds (not verified)at 14:12 on January 5th, 2010
Ms. Mangus, is merely exercising her rights as a parent. I know her personally, she's a woman of integrity and I know that she will not back down on this! With that being said, I must advocate for her by asking, Is there anyone out there willing to help her?
at 17:44 on January 5th, 2010
Greg s ichilds (not verified):
Is there anyone out there willing to help her?
You bet! Just say the word!
But something tells me that Rhonda is the kind of woman that can grab the bull by the horns and take it down . . . .
at 12:23 on January 6th, 2010
"But something tells me that Rhonda is the kind of woman that can grab the bull by the horns and take it down . . . ."
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Rory:)!
at 14:16 on January 5th, 2010
Childs!:) Thank so much for stopping by and commenting! No worries:)! Talk soon!
at 14:44 on January 5th, 2010
Rhonda: Have been to your blog, and linked your piece on my own blog. Excellent posting, and I am rooting for you! :)
at 14:51 on January 5th, 2010
Thank you, smk:)! The gesture is deeply appreciated:)!
at 17:33 on January 5th, 2010
Rhonda: God bless you! Thank you for this post and the information contained therein. I knew that there was something special about you. : )
No good SOBs . . . LNQBG
at 04:39 on January 6th, 2010
You are very welcome, Rory! Thank you for the compliment:)! And, thanks for reading and the rec!
at 23:31 on January 5th, 2010
Excellent Story Rhonda
at 04:40 on January 6th, 2010
Thank you, Barry!
at 05:28 on January 6th, 2010
Great post Rhonda.
at 12:22 on January 6th, 2010
Thank you, Paschen!
at 17:39 on January 7th, 2010
No worries, generaldecay! Thank you for reading and for the recommendation!
at 23:04 on January 8th, 2010
Thank you for sharing this story.
at 06:56 on January 9th, 2010
You are very welcome, patgarcia! Thank you very much for reading, commenting, and for the recommendation!