# In re M. Children

> New York City Family Court · February 24, 1997 · 171 Misc. 2d 838

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6224710

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of M. Children, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Maria O., Also Known as Maria M.
- **Court:** New York City Family Court
- **Decided:** February 24, 1997
- **Citations:** 171 Misc. 2d 838; 656 N.Y.S.2d 119; 1997 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 75
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Segal
- **Judges:** Segal
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6224710

## Opinion text

OPINION OF THE COURT
Philip C. Segal, J.
*839 Petitioner Commissioner of Social Services’ motion in this child protective proceeding (see, Family Ct Act art 10) for an order directing respondents to submit to a forensic mental health examination by petitioner’s expert is granted. The verified petition alleges that respondents’ children are neglected as a result of respondents’ mental illness (see, e.g., Matter of Jesse DD., 223 AD2d 929 [3d Dept 1996]; Matter of Madeline R., 214 AD2d 445 [1st Dept 1995]). As such, respondents’ mental condition is "in controversy” (CPLR 3121 [a]) during the fact-finding phase of this proceeding so that a mental health examination by a psychiatrist or properly qualified psychologist (cf., Family Ct Act § 251 [a]) is appropriate as a matter of pretrial disclosure (Matter of R./G. Children, 165 Misc 2d 521 [Fam Ct 1994]; see, Matter of Trida K., 160 Misc 2d 935 [Fam Ct 1994]).
Contrary to respondents’ assertions, Family Court Act § 1038-a does not compel an opposite result or establish additional requirements for the disclosure petitioner seeks. That section governs the taking of blood, hair or other samples from a respondent’s body (see, Schmerber v California, 384 US 757 [1966]), and is inapplicable to mental health examinations for which CPLR 3121 (a) specifically provides (Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287 [1969]; Watson v State of New York, 53 AD2d 798 [3d Dept 1976]).
Settle order on seven days’ notice to opposing counsel including the name of the expert to be utilized and a copy of his or her curriculum vitae.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6224710. Public record. Not legal advice.