Opinion
5199
12-14-2017
IN RE ANGELOS F., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Leonidas F., Respondent–Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the child.
Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the child.
Friedman, J.P., Kahn, Gesmer, Kern, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about May 13, 2016, which, after a hearing, found that respondent father had neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Family Court's finding of neglect (see Family Ct Act § 1012[f] ). The testimony presented at the fact-finding hearing established that the father's focus on his unfounded belief that he was being surveilled as part of a conspiracy against him affected his ability to exercise a minimum degree of care and caused the child to become impaired and threatened to further impair the child's physical, mental and emotional condition (see Matter of Caress S., 250 A.D.2d 490, 673 N.Y.S.2d 123 [1st Dept. 1998] ). As a result of the father's irrational belief, he socially isolated the child by keeping him confined to an unsanitary room in a shelter most of the time. The child was found unkempt and without the resources to bathe between January 23, 2015 and February 25, 2015. The father's actions resulted in the child becoming extremely distraught, anxious and angry to the point of attempting to cause injury to himself (see Matter of Corine G. [William G.], 135 A.D.3d 443, 443, 24 N.Y.S.3d 15 [1st Dept. 2016] ; Matter of Skye C. [Monica S.], 127 A.D.3d 603, 603–604, 8 N.Y.S.3d 126 [1st Dept. 2015] ).
In addition, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the father educationally neglected the child by failing to promptly enroll him in school, provide him with the required instruction elsewhere, and provide a reasonable justification for the child's absences (see Matter of Kaila A. [Reginald A.–Lovely A.], 95 A.D.3d 421, 421, 942 N.Y.S.2d 789 [1st Dept. 2012]; Matter of Jessica J., 57 A.D.3d 271, 271–272, 871 N.Y.S.2d 7 [1st Dept. 2008] ).
The father was not denied effective assistance of counsel. Given the evidence that the child was found unkempt for almost one month and missed several weeks of school, the father could not have been prejudiced by any failing on the part of his counsel (see Matter of Tyshawn Jaraind C., 33 A.D.3d 488, 823 N.Y.S.2d 34 [1st Dept. 2006] ).