Opinion
5361 5362
01-04-2018
IN RE JERELL P., a Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Qubilah G., Respondent–Appellant, v. Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Anne Reiniger, New York, for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Carolyn Walther of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Hausknecht of counsel), attorney for the child.
Anne Reiniger, New York, for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Carolyn Walther of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Hausknecht of counsel), attorney for the child.
Renwick, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.
Order of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sarah P. Cooper, J.), entered on or about October 27, 2016, which, upon granting petitioner agency's motion for summary judgment, found that respondent mother had derivatively neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from decision and order, same court, Judge and date, which granted the motion for summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition.
The agency made a prima facie showing of derivative neglect as to the subject child, based on prior orders finding that the mother had neglected and derivatively neglected her four older children (see Matter of Camarrie B. [Maria R.], 107 A.D.3d 409, 966 N.Y.S.2d 415 [1st Dept. 2013] ). The prior neglect findings, issued over a two-year period between 2014 and 2016, support a finding that the mother, by reason of her cognitive limitations and impaired judgment, was unable to care for any child (see Matter of Phoenix J. [Kodee J.], 129 A.D.3d 603, 12 N.Y.S.3d 64 [1st Dept. 2015] ; Matter of T–Shauna K., 63 A.D.3d 420, 879 N.Y.S.2d 462 [1st Dept. 2009] ). Further, the conduct underlying the prior findings of neglect was sufficiently proximate in time to the derivative neglect proceeding to support the conclusion that the conditions still existed (see T–Shauna K., 63 A.D.3d at 420, 879 N.Y.S.2d 462 ). Moreover, the repeated findings of neglect against the mother and her ongoing failure to participate in services as evidenced by the fact that her children were never returned to her care and by the transfer of guardianship, all established that the conditions that led to the prior findings still existed and that the child would be at risk in her care (see Matter of Neveah AA. [Alia CC.], 124 A.D.3d 938, 1 N.Y.S.3d 435 [3d Dept. 2015] ).
In opposition to the agency's motion, the mother failed to rebut the presumption that the conditions leading the neglect of the child's siblings had not been remedied (see Matter of Phoenix J. at 603–604, 12 N.Y.S.3d 64 ).