Opinion
15664
06-25-2015
In re PHOENIX J., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Kodee J., Respondent–Appellant, Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York, Petitioner–Respondent.
Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jane L. Gordon of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Claire V. Merkine of counsel), attorney for the child.
Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jane L. Gordon of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Claire V. Merkine of counsel), attorney for the child.
GONZALEZ, P.J., FRIEDMAN, RENWICK, MOSKOWITZ, CLARK, JJ.
Opinion Order of fact-finding, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about June 19, 2014, which granted petitioner agency's motion for summary judgment, finding that respondent mother had derivatively neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The agency made a prima facie showing of derivative neglect as to the subject child, based on three prior orders finding that the mother had neglected three of her older children, and orders terminating her parental rights to all five of her older children in October 2011 (see Matter of Camarrie B. [Maria R.], 107 A.D.3d 409, 966 N.Y.S.2d 415 [1st Dept.2013] ). The prior neglect findings, issued over a five-year period between September 2005 and September 2010, support a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother, by reason of her untreated mental health issues, was unable to care for any child (see Matter of T–Shauna K., 63 A.D.3d 420, 879 N.Y.S.2d 462 [1st Dept.2009] ). Further, the orders terminating the mother's parental rights were based on findings that she had permanently neglected the children by failing to, among other things, consistently visit them, complete parenting skills and anger management programs, and comply with mental health service referrals. The permanent neglect findings thus demonstrate that the mother had not addressed or resolved the issues that resulted in the prior findings of neglect(see Matter of Darren Desmond W. [Nirandah W.], 121 A.D.3d 573, 993 N.Y.S.2d 908 [1st Dept.2014] ; Matter of Jamarra S. [Jessica S.], 85 A.D.3d 803, 804–805, 925 N.Y.S.2d 531 [2d Dept.2011] ). The conduct underlying the prior findings of neglect and permanent neglect was sufficiently proximate in time to the derivative neglect proceeding to support the conclusion that the conditions still existed (see T–Shauna K., 63 A.D.3d at 420, 879 N.Y.S.2d 462 ).
In opposition to the agency's motion, the mother presented no evidence that circumstances had changed (see Matter of Jayden C. [Luisanny A.], 126 A.D.3d 433, 434, 2 N.Y.S.3d 349 [1st Dept.2015] ).