Opinion
2017–00636 Docket Nos. N–2060–16 N–2061–16
07-11-2018
In the MATTER OF JAYLEN D.–H. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent; v. Jennifer D. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Kyla D.–H. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent; v. Jennifer D. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)
Heather A. Fig, Bayport, NY, for appellant. Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Alex J. Berkman of counsel), for respondent. Steven M. Burton, Central Islip, NY, attorney for the children.
Heather A. Fig, Bayport, NY, for appellant.
Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Alex J. Berkman of counsel), for respondent.
Steven M. Burton, Central Islip, NY, attorney for the children.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MARK C. DILLON, JEFFREY A. COHEN, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In two related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Deborah Poulos, J.), dated October 18, 2016. The order, after a fact-finding and dispositional hearing, found that the mother neglected the subject children and released the children to the custody of the mother with supervision by the petitioner until October 17, 2017.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as released the children to the custody of the mother with supervision by the petitioner until October 17, 2017, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as that portion of the order expired by its own terms (see Matter of Amber A. [Thomas E.], 108 A.D.3d 664, 969 N.Y.S.2d 162 ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner commenced these two related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging that the mother neglected the subject children. Following a fact-finding and dispositional hearing, the Family Court issued an order of fact-finding and disposition which, inter alia, found that the mother neglected the children. The mother appeals.
At a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject child has been abused or neglected (see Family Ct Act § 1046[b][i] ; Matter of Nsongurua N. [Nsikak O.], 158 A.D.3d 695, 70 N.Y.S.3d 573 ; Matter of Maya B. [Muke B.], 156 A.D.3d 784, 66 N.Y.S.3d 519 ). The petitioner meets this burden with evidence showing that the child's physical, mental, or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of a parent's failure to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing proper supervision and guardianship for the child (see Matter of Michael G. [Marie S.F.], 152 A.D.3d 590, 59 N.Y.S.3d 74 ). In reviewing such a determination, the Family Court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to considerable deference (see Matter ofJamel T. [Gemayel T.], 120 A.D.3d 504, 505, 989 N.Y.S.2d 908 ; Matter of Monica C.M. [Arnold A.], 107 A.D.3d 996, 997, 968 N.Y.S.2d 143 ). Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the Family Court's determination that the mother neglected the children is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Monica M. [Mary M.], 151 A.D.3d 1705, 56 N.Y.S.3d 739 ; Matter of Warren RR. [Brittany Q.], 143 A.D.3d 1072, 39 N.Y.S.3d 267 ).
The mother's remaining contention is without merit.
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., DILLON, COHEN and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.