Opinion
2015-10-21
In the Matter of SARAH C. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Caroline C. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Shawn C. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Caroline C. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Joshua C. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Caroline C. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 3) In the Matter of Joseph C. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Caroline C. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 4).
Larry S. Bachner, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Elizabeth S. Natrella of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Larry S. Bachner, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Elizabeth S. Natrella of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Marcia Egger of counsel), attorney for the children.
Appeal from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Kings County (Terrence J. McElrath, J.), dated March 11, 2014. The order, after a fact-finding hearing, insofar as appealed from, found that the mother neglected the child Sarah C. and derivatively neglected the children Joseph C., Joshua C., and Shawn C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The determination of the Family Court that the mother neglected the subject child Sarah C. was supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( seeFamily Ct. Act §§ 1012[f][i][B]; 1046[b][i]; Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357, 368, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840; Matter of Amber C., 38 A.D.3d 538, 540, 831 N.Y.S.2d 478). The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing showed that the mother reasonably should have known that Sarah C. was in imminent danger of being sexually abused. Under these circumstances, “a reasonable and prudent parent” would not have “failed to act” to protect Sarah C. ( Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d at 370, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840; see Matter of Dylan C. [Carmen V.], 130 A.D.3d 821, 12 N.Y.S.3d 558; Matter of Dave D. [Mary E.S.], 78 A.D.3d 829, 912 N.Y.S.2d 70; Matter of Selena J., 35 A.D.3d 610, 611, 825 N.Y.S.2d 749; Matter of Jasmine B., 4 A.D.3d 353, 353–354, 771 N.Y.S.2d 540; Matter of Christina P., 275 A.D.2d 783, 784, 713 N.Y.S.2d 743).
Moreover, as the evidence of the mother's conduct toward Sarah C. demonstrated a fundamental defect in her understanding of the duties of parenthood, the Family Court properly found that the mother had derivatively neglected the subject children Joseph C., Joshua C., and Shawn C. ( see Family Ct. Act § 1046[a][i]; [b][i]; Matter of Maithsa Edourd S., 27 A.D.3d 475, 476, 811 N.Y.S.2d 117).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit. DILLON, J.P., MILLER, DUFFY and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.