Opinion
03-31-2016
In re JOHN S., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Milica S., also known as Millica S., Respondent–Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Michelle R. Duprey of counsel), attorney for the child.
Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Michelle R. Duprey of counsel), attorney for the child.
Opinion
Order, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about February 19, 2015, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that respondent mother neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner agency satisfied its burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that respondent neglected the child (see Family Court Act §§ 1012 [f][i][B]; 1046[b][i] ). There are no grounds for disturbing the court's credibility determinations (see Matter of Fernando S., 63 A.D.3d 610, 883 N.Y.S.2d 469 [1st Dept.2009] ). Respondent placed the child in imminent danger after she became intoxicated on the night of December 15, 2013, assaulted the child's father in the child's presence, and assaulted the child (see Matter of Raima W., 59 A.D.3d 633, 873 N.Y.S.2d 704 [2d Dept.2009] ). Her participation in and completion of 12 weeks of intensive outpatient treatment after the instant neglect petition was filed against her, while positive, does not warrant a different disposition on the issue of neglect (see Matter of Elijah J. [Yvonda M.], 105 A.D.3d 449, 450, 963 N.Y.S.2d 77 [1st Dept.2013]; Family Court Act § 1046[a][iii] ).
Respondent failed to preserve her argument that the petition should have been dismissed pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051(c), and we decline to consider it (see Matter of Cherish C. [Shanikwa C.], 102 A.D.3d 597, 959 N.Y.S.2d 51 [1st Dept.2013] ). Were we to consider it, we would reject it.
TOM, J.P., SWEENY, MANZANET–DANIELS, GISCHE, GESMER, JJ., concur.