Opinion
2022-02058 NN-08013/20
03-24-2022
In the Matter of Kyng F., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Kareem F., Respondent-Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent. Appeal No. 15584 Case No. 2020-03866
Carol L. Kahn, New York, for appellant. Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York (Rebecca L. Visgaitis of counsel), for respondent. Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, attorney for the child.
Carol L. Kahn, New York, for appellant.
Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York (Rebecca L. Visgaitis of counsel), for respondent.
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, attorney for the child.
Before: Kern, J.P., Moulton, Rodriguez, Pitt, Higgitt, JJ.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Keith E. Brown, J.), entered on or about September 15, 2020, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied respondent father's motions under Family Court Act §§ 1028 and 1061 to have the subject child released to him or for unsupervised visitation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
There is a sound and substantial basis in the record for Family Court's finding that the child would face imminent risk of harm if returned to the father's care (see Family Ct Act § 1028[a][ii]; Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357, 369 [2004]). The neglect petition charged that the father had committed acts of domestic violence against nonrespondent mother in the child's presence, and the case worker testified concerning his aggressive and uncooperative behavior during supervised visits and in dealings with the agency (see Matter of Jermaine K.R. [Jermaine R.], 176 A.D.3d 648, 649 [1st Dept 2019]). Although the father was being treated for his mental health issues, he refused referrals for anger management and continued to show a lack of insight into the issues that gave rise to the proceedings.
For the same reasons, Family Court providently denied the father's alternative request to modify the release order to allow unsupervised visits based on the evidence that the father continued to act in an aggressive manner during supervised visits and did not show good cause for such modification (see Matter of Madison H. [Demezz J.H.], 173 A.D.3d 458, 459 [1st Dept 2019]; Matter of Gerald Y.-C. [Roland Y.], 150 A.D.3d 457, 458 [1st Dept 2017]).
We have considered the father's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.