Opinion
395.
03-03-2016
In re JULIO O., and Others, Dependant Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Moises O., Respondent, Latishya H., Respondent–Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Larry S. Bachner, Jamaica, for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Michelle R. Duprey of counsel), attorney for the children.
Larry S. Bachner, Jamaica, for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Michelle R. Duprey of counsel), attorney for the children.
Opinion
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Sarah P. Cooper, J.), entered on or about December 1, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, after a fact-finding hearing, determined that respondent mother had neglected the subject child Roberto O., and had derivatively neglected the other subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
A preponderance of the evidence shows that the mother neglected Roberto by failing to address his numerous long-standing special needs and by failing to comply with the dispositional order in an earlier neglect proceeding against her (see Matter of Kiera R. [Kinyetta R.], 99 A.D.3d 565, 565, 952 N.Y.S.2d 185 1st Dept.2012 ). Family Court properly drew a negative inference from the mother's failure to testify (see Matter of Jazmyn R. [Luceita F.], 67 A.D.3d 495, 495, 889 N.Y.S.2d 30 1st Dept.2009 ).
The derivative neglect finding as to the other children is also supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct. Act § 1046[a][i], [b][i] ). The mother's failure to address Roberto's problems demonstrated an impaired level of parental judgment that created a substantial risk of harm for all of the children in her care (Matter of Perry S., 22 A.D.3d 234, 235, 802 N.Y.S.2d 115 1st Dept.2005 ). In addition, the evidence shows that two of the other subject children were having difficulty in school and had hygiene problems, and there was a prior derivative neglect finding with respect to three of the other subject children.
The mother never filed a notice of appeal with respect to the order of disposition entered on or about December 1, 2014, or with respect to the subsequent order extending placement, entered on or about February 23, 2015. Accordingly, we decline to reach the mother's arguments regarding those orders (see Matter of M.H. Children, 284 A.D.2d 188, 726 N.Y.S.2d 107 1st Dept.2001 ). In any event, the mother's arguments are unavailing.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., SWEENY, MANZANET–DANIELS, GISCHE, JJ., concur.