Santos v. Goldstein

Order, entered on May 25, 1961 adjudicating that the child “ is neglected ” unanimously affirmed, without costs. The parents, because of religious convictions, refused to give their consent to a blood transfusion. Operative procedure might have made a transfusion essential for the safety of the child. Such refusal warranted the finding of “ neglect ” within the meaning of section 2 (subd. [17], par. [g] of the New York City Domestic Relations Court Act (see People ex rel. Wallace v. Labrenz, 411 Ill. 618 , cert, denied 344 U. S. 824 ). Such finding, however, does not constitute an adjudication that the parents neglected their child in the ordinary meaning of the word. “ Neglected ” is here used in its legal sense within the meaning of the Domestic Relations Court Act. It in no way imports a finding that these parents failed in their duty to the child in any other respect. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.