Opinion
06-16-2016
In re JOELLE T., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Laconia W., Respondent–Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Law Office of Cabelly & Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Dona B. Morris of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Jess Rao of counsel), attorney for the child.
Law Office of Cabelly & Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Dona B. Morris of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Jess Rao of counsel), attorney for the child.
TOM, J.P., MAZZARELLI, MANZANET–DANIELS, KAPNICK, KAHN, JJ.
Opinion Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Joan L. Piccirillo, J.), entered on or about January 6, 2015, to the extent it brings up for review a fact-finding order, same court and Judge, entered on or about March 13, 2014, which found that respondent mother had neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from fact-finding order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.
A preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court's finding that respondent neglected the child by leaving her on July 1, 2013 at petitioner agency with only the clothing she wore, and without making provisions for her medication, psychiatric care, food, clothing, or shelter (see Matter of Jalil
McC. [Denise C.], 84 A.D.3d 1089, 1090, 924 N.Y.S.2d 420 [2d Dept.2011] ; Matter of Nyia L. [Egipcia E.C.], 88 A.D.3d 882, 883, 931 N.Y.S.2d 257 [2d Dept.2011] ). Respondent's actions and statements to a caseworker that she was unwilling to take care of the child reflected her clear intention to abdicate her parental obligations, which placed the child at imminent risk of impairment (see Matter of Shawntay S. [Stephanie R.], 114 A.D.3d 502, 979 N.Y.S.2d 815 [1st Dept.2014] ). The child's disciplinary issues do not foreclose a finding of neglect, since the evidence shows that respondent refused to cooperate with the agency's efforts to address the child's problems (see Matter of Clayton OO. [Nikki PP.], 101 A.D.3d 1411, 1412, 956 N.Y.S.2d 328 [3d Dept.2012] ).
A preponderance of the evidence also supports Family Court's finding that respondent neglected the child by failing to provide her with her prescribed medications. The caseworker's unrefuted testimony establishes that between June 11, 2013 and July 1, 2013, the child did not receive her prescribed medication. Respondent's failure to provide the prescribed medication placed the child at imminent risk of impairment (see Matter of John H.M., 54 A.D.3d 763, 764, 864 N.Y.S.2d 89 [2d Dept.2008], lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 714, 873 N.Y.S.2d 269, 901 N.E.2d 763 [2009] ).
Family Court was entitled to draw the strongest inference against respondent that the opposing evidence permitted, given her failure to testify at the fact-finding hearing (see Matter of Rosemary V. [Jorge V.], 103 A.D.3d 484, 960 N.Y.S.2d 84 [1st Dept.2013] ).
We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.