Opinion
547 CAF 19-01537
08-26-2021
In the MATTER OF KATALINA M., Jamir M., and Jakir M. Erie County Department of Social Services, Petitioner-Respondent; v. Lakira C., Respondent-Appellant, and Julius M., Respondent.
DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. REBECCA HOFFMAN, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. DOUGLAS P. STILLER, BUFFALO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
REBECCA HOFFMAN, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
DOUGLAS P. STILLER, BUFFALO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, respondent mother appeals from an order, issued following a fact-finding hearing, that determined, inter alia, that she neglected the youngest of the subject children and derivatively neglected the other two subject children.
We reject the mother's contention that petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she neglected the youngest child. We accord great weight and deference to Family Court's determinations, including its drawing of inferences and assessment of credibility, and will not disturb those determinations where they are supported by the record (see Matter of Arianna M. [Brian M.] , 105 A.D.3d 1401, 1401, 963 N.Y.S.2d 895 [4th Dept. 2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 862, 2013 WL 4516332 [2013] ). Here, the record supports the court's finding that the child was in imminent danger of impairment as a result of the mother's failure to provide for her medical needs although offered the assistance to do so (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A] ; Matter of Mia G. [William B.] , 146 A.D.3d 882, 883, 45 N.Y.S.3d 516 [2d Dept. 2017] ; Matter of Richard S. [Lacey P.] , 130 A.D.3d 630, 633, 14 N.Y.S.3d 400 [2d Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 906, 17 N.Y.S.3d 87, 38 N.E.3d 833 [2015] ). The evidence established, inter alia, that the mother failed to take certain steps necessary to address the youngest child's serious health challenges and that, when offered daycare assistance for her two older children, which would have enabled the mother to be present and available to address the medical needs of her youngest child, the mother refused that assistance to the detriment of the youngest child's care and treatment.
Contrary to the mother's contention that the court erred in determining that she derivatively neglected the two older children, we conclude that the record supports the court's determination that "the evidence of ... neglect of [the youngest] child indicates a fundamental defect in [the mother's] understanding of the duties of parenthood ... or demonstrates such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in [her] care" ( Matter of Eliora B. [Kennedy B.] , 146 A.D.3d 772, 774, 45 N.Y.S.3d 144 [2d Dept. 2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Jacob W. [Jermaine W.] , 170 A.D.3d 1513, 1513-1514, 96 N.Y.S.3d 398 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 906, 2019 WL 2376029 [2019] ; Matter of Dayshaun W. [Jasmine G.] , 133 A.D.3d 1347, 1348, 20 N.Y.S.3d 808 [4th Dept. 2015] ).