Opinion
05-31-2017
In the Matter of PERSAIUS A.–K. (Anonymous), appellant. Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Yasin A.–K. (Anonymous), et al., respondents-respondents. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Taymius A.–K. (Anonymous), appellant. Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Yasin A.–K. (Anonymous), et al., respondents-respondents. (Proceeding No. 2).
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Tamara A. Steckler and John A. Newbery of counsel), for appellants. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Pamela Seider Dolgow and John Moore of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Tamara A. Steckler and John A. Newbery of counsel), for appellants.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Pamela Seider Dolgow and John Moore of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Appeal by the children from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Kings County (Ann E. O'Shea, J.), dated February 9, 2016. The order of fact-finding, insofar as appealed from, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the father did not abuse or severely abuse the child Persaius and did not derivatively abuse or derivatively severely abuse the child Taymius.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding is modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting the provisions thereof finding that the father did not abuse the child Persaius and did not derivatively abuse the child Taymius, and substituting therefor a provision finding that the father abused the child Persaius and derivatively abused the child Taymius; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner made a prima facie showing that the father abused the child Persaius (see Family Ct. Act §§ 1012[e][i] ; 1046[a][ii]; Matter of Philip M., 82 N.Y.2d 238, 243–244, 604 N.Y.S.2d 40, 624 N.E.2d 168 ). The father, who testified on his own behalf at the fact-finding hearing and blamed his girlfriend for Persaius's injuries, failed to rebut the inference that he was also responsible for the abuse, in that he failed to protect Persaius from physical danger (see Matter of Nabel C. [Amanda R.], 134 A.D.3d 504, 505, 23 N.Y.S.3d 8 ; Matter of Infinite G., 11 A.D.3d 688, 689, 783 N.Y.S.2d 656 ; Matter of Brandon C., 247 A.D.2d 380, 381, 668 N.Y.S.2d 655 ; Matter of Antoine J., 185 A.D.2d 925, 587 N.Y.S.2d 13 ). Moreover, the evidence demonstrated that the father's judgment and understanding of his parental duties were so defective as to create a substantial risk of harm to the child Taymius (see Family Ct. Act §§ 1012[e][i] ; 1046[a][ii]; Matter Amirah L. [Candice J.], 118 A.D.3d 795, 796, 987 N.Y.S.2d 197 ). Accordingly, we find that Persaius was abused by the father, and that Taymius was derivatively abused by the father.However, the Family Court properly found that there was not sufficient evidence to clearly and convincingly establish that the father acted under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life so as to support a finding that he severely abused Persaius and derivatively severely abused Taymius (see Social Services Law § 384–b[8][a][i] ; Family Ct Act § 1051[e] ; Matter of Jezekiah R.–A. [Edwin R.–E.], 78 A.D.3d 1550, 1550–1551, 910 N.Y.S.2d 806 ).
MASTRO, J.P., HALL, AUSTIN and BARROS, JJ., concur.