Opinion
05-28-2024
In the MATTER OF N.R. and Another, Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., D. W., Respondent-Appellant, v. Administration for Children’s Services, Petitioner-Respondent.
Larry S. Bachner, New York, for appellant. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Karin Wolfe of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Riti P. Singh of counsel), attorney for the children.
Larry S. Bachner, New York, for appellant.
Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Karin Wolfe of counsel), for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Riti P. Singh of counsel), attorney for the children.
Singh, J.P., Kennedy, Rodriguez, Pitt-Burke, Michael, JJ.
Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper), Family Court, Bronx County (E. Grace Park, J.), entered on or about June 26, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that respondent mother had neglected the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
[1] The credible evidence supports the determination that the mother placed the children at imminent risk of impairment of their physical, mental, or emotional health (see Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357, 368-369, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840 [2004]; Family Ct Act §§ 1012, 1046). The mother’s unspecified, untreated mental illness manifested in her belief that the very young children were being inappropriately touched/sexually abused by strangers, subjecting them to evaluations and examinations by medical professionals, child protective services, and police officers (see Matter of N.A.S. [V.H.], 217 A.D.3d 485, 486, 190 N.Y.S.3d 64 [1st Dept. 2023]; Matter of Lanelis V. [Daisy C.], 102 A.D.3d 441, 441-442, 956 N.Y.S.2d 881 [1st Dept. 2013]). There is no reason to disturb the court’s credibility findings, which are entitled to deference (see Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776, 778, 381 N.Y.S.2d 865, 345 N.E.2d 337 [1975]; Matter of Moises G. [Luis G.], 135 A.D.3d 527, 527-528, 24 N.Y.S.3d 239 [1st Dept. 2016]).
[2, 3] The mother’s contention that the court abused its discretion in conforming the pleading to the proofs is improperly raised for the first time in her reply brief (see Erdey v. City of New York, 129 A.D.3d 546, 546-47, 11 N.Y.S.3d 592 [1st Dept. 2015]). In any event, the mother had a full and fair opportunity to address allegations concerning unsubstantiated accusations of sexual abuse of one or both of the children in 2020 that she, herself, testified to at both the Family Court Act § 1028 and fact-finding hearings (see Matter of Oksoon K. v. Young K., 115 A.D.3d 486, 487, 981 N.Y.S.2d 423 [1st Dept. 2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 902, 2014 WL 4454914 [2014]).
We have considered the mother’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.