Opinion
280 CAF 19-01530
03-26-2021
In the MATTER OF FAITH B. and Joel L. Onondaga County Department of Children and Family Services, Petitioner-Respondent; v. Jocelyn V., Respondent-Appellant, and Manuel L., Respondent.
THEODORE W. STENUF, MINOA, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. ROBERT A. DURR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (DAVID L. CHAPLIN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. COURTNEY S. RADICK, OSWEGO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
THEODORE W. STENUF, MINOA, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
ROBERT A. DURR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (DAVID L. CHAPLIN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
COURTNEY S. RADICK, OSWEGO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, CURRAN, 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 that, inter alia, adjudicated her two children to be neglected. We reject the mother's contention that Family Court erred in determining that petitioner established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she neglected the children (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i] [B] ; 1046 [b] [i]; see generally Matter of Kaylee D. [Kimberly D.] , 154 A.D.3d 1343, 1345-1346, 61 N.Y.S.3d 783 [4th Dept. 2017] ; Matter of Emily W. [Michael S.—Rebecca S.] , 150 A.D.3d 1707, 1709, 52 N.Y.S.3d 609 [4th Dept. 2017] ).
Contrary to the mother's contention, "a single incident where the parent's judgment was strongly impaired and the child [was] exposed to a risk of substantial harm can sustain a finding of neglect" ( Matter of Lasondra D. [Cassandra D.—Victor S.] , 151 A.D.3d 1655, 1656, 56 N.Y.S.3d 713 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 902, 2017 WL 4653554 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Kaylee D. , 154 A.D.3d at 1344, 61 N.Y.S.3d 783 ; Matter of Raven B. [Melissa K.N.] , 115 A.D.3d 1276, 1278, 983 N.Y.S.2d 155 [4th Dept. 2014] ). Petitioner established at the fact-finding hearing that, on the occasion in question here, the mother went with her children to a counseling meeting at petitioner's office and, during the course of the meeting, the mother expressed suicidal ideation by stating, inter alia, that she wanted to step in front of a motor vehicle, and she also stated that she could not care for the children and that she wished they had never been born. Petitioner's witnesses at that hearing, i.e., a counselor and the supervisor who was on duty at the time of the meeting, described the mother as loud, pressured in her speech, very upset, and in great distress. Based on our review of the evidence, we conclude that the record supports the court's determination that the mother neglected the children on the day in question as a result of her mental illness (see Matter of Kendall N. [Angela M.] , 188 A.D.3d 1688, 1688-1689, 132 N.Y.S.3d 392 [4th Dept. 2020] ; Matter of Cameron M. [Keira P.] , 187 A.D.3d 1582, 1582-1583, 130 N.Y.S.3d 586 [4th Dept. 2020] ). Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the children's physical, mental, or emotional conditions were in imminent danger of becoming impaired if the children had been released to the mother's care following the meeting (see Kendall N. , 188 A.D.3d at 1689, 132 N.Y.S.3d 392 ; see generally Nicholson v. Scoppetta , 3 N.Y.3d 357, 368-369, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840 [2004] ; Lasondra D. , 151 A.D.3d at 1656, 56 N.Y.S.3d 713 ). Although the mother attempted in her testimony to minimize the significance of her statements and actions on the day in question, we see no reason to disturb the court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses (see Kaylee D. , 154 A.D.3d at 1345-1346, 61 N.Y.S.3d 783 ; Emily W. , 150 A.D.3d at 1709, 52 N.Y.S.3d 609 ).