Opinion
No. 2022-10403 No. N-31649-18
02-21-2024
In the Matter of Yeimi M. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Maria S., (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent.
Brooklyn Defender Services, Brooklyn, NY (Heather Marie Bristol, Kathryn V. Lissy, and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP [Kathleen A. Reilly, Rebecca D. Maller-Stein, and Aidan Mulry], of counsel), for appellant. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, New York, NY (Melanie T. West and Eva L. Jerome of counsel), for petitioner-respondent. Twyla Carter, New York, NY (Dawne A. Mitchell and Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the child Yeimi M. Steven P. Forbes, Huntington, NY, attorney for the child Allison M.
Brooklyn Defender Services, Brooklyn, NY (Heather Marie Bristol, Kathryn V. Lissy, and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP [Kathleen A. Reilly, Rebecca D. Maller-Stein, and Aidan Mulry], of counsel), for appellant.
Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, New York, NY (Melanie T. West and Eva L. Jerome of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Twyla Carter, New York, NY (Dawne A. Mitchell and Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the child Yeimi M.
Steven P. Forbes, Huntington, NY, attorney for the child Allison M.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P. BETSY BARROS DEBORAH A. DOWLING LILLIAN WAN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Ilana Gruebel, J.), dated August 10, 2022. The order of disposition, insofar as appealed from, was entered upon an order of fact-finding of the same court dated March 1, 2022, made after a fact-finding hearing, finding that the mother neglected the subject child.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In December 2018, the Administration for Children's Services commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging, inter alia, that the mother neglected the subject child because the mother had permitted her boyfriend to have continued access to, and contact with, the child after she had reported to the mother that the mother's boyfriend had sexually abused her on multiple occasions. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the mother neglected the child. The mother appeals.
In a neglect proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject child was neglected (see id. § 1046[b][i]; Matter of Maurice M. [Suzanne H.], 158 A.D.3d 689, 690; Matter of Jemima M. [Aura M.], 151 A.D.3d 862, 863). Great deference is given to the Family Court's credibility determinations, as it is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses, having had the opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe their demeanor (see Matter of Skye H. [Tianna S.], 195 A.D.3d 711, 713).
Here, the Family Court's finding that the mother neglected the child by permitting her boyfriend to have continued access to, and contact with, the child after she had reported to the mother that the mother's boyfriend had sexually abused her on multiple occasions was supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence (see Matter of Jose E. [Jose M.], 176 A.D.3d 1201, 1202; Matter of Selena J., 35 A.D.3d 610, 611). Contrary to the mother's contention, the court was entitled to draw the strongest negative inference against her for her failure to testify (see Matter of Adina B. [Alexander B.], 210 A.D.3d 981, 983; Matter of Kristina I. [Al Quran F.], 163 A.D.3d 565, 567; Matter of Alanah M. [Donnie M.], 96 A.D.3d 757, 758).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.
DILLON, J.P., BARROS, DOWLING and WAN, JJ., concur.