Opinion
2012-02-28
In the Matter of QUINCY K. (Anonymous).Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent;Herbie W. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1)In the Matter of Jade K. (Anonymous).Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent;Herbie W. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)
Regina G. Russell, Port Jefferson Station, N.Y., for appellant. Dennis M. Cohen, Acting County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Jeffrey P. Tavel of counsel), for respondent.
Regina G. Russell, Port Jefferson Station, N.Y., for appellant. Dennis M. Cohen, Acting County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Jeffrey P. Tavel of counsel), for respondent.
Steven Flaumenhaft, West Sayville, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In two related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the appeals are from (1) an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated April 8, 2011, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, inter alia, found that the father neglected the subject children, and (2) an order of protection of the same court, also dated April 8, 2011, which directed, among other things, that the father's visits with the subject children be supervised.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition and the order of protection are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In a child protective proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of proving neglect by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct. Act § 1046[b] [i]; Matter of Philip M., 82 N.Y.2d 238, 243, 604 N.Y.S.2d 40, 624 N.E.2d 168; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 N.Y.2d 1, 3, 494 N.Y.S.2d 686, 484 N.E.2d 1038; Matter of Besthani M., 13 A.D.3d 452, 452, 785 N.Y.S.2d 717). Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court's finding of neglect based on the use of excessive corporal punishment is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct. Act § 1012[f][i][B]; § 1046[b][i]; Matter of Chanyae S. [ Rena W.], 82 A.D.3d 1247, 1247, 924 N.Y.S.2d 793; Matter of Isaiah S., 63 A.D.3d 948, 949, 880 N.Y.S.2d 528; Matter of Joshua B., 28 A.D.3d 759, 760–761, 814 N.Y.S.2d 210; Matter of Joseph O., 28 A.D.3d 562, 563, 813 N.Y.S.2d 213).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.