Opinion
2018-06618 Docket Nos. N-10811-17, N-10814-17
10-02-2019
In the MATTER OF ALTANA D. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; v. Ezena L. (Anonymous), Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Michel L.O. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; v. Ezena L. (Anonymous), Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)
Glenn Gucciardo, Northport, NY, for appellant. Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Jacklyn N. Aymong of counsel), for respondent. Laura C. Golightly, Hauppauge, NY, attorney for the children.
Glenn Gucciardo, Northport, NY, for appellant.
Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Jacklyn N. Aymong of counsel), for respondent.
Laura C. Golightly, Hauppauge, NY, attorney for the children.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Theresa Whelan, J.), dated May 8, 2018. The order of fact-finding and disposition, upon a decision of the same court dated April 18, 2018, made after a fact-finding hearing, and after a dispositional hearing, found that the mother neglected the subject children and directed, inter alia, that the mother undergo a mental health evaluation.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner commenced these proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 alleging that the mother neglected the child Michel L.O. by failing to provide adequate guardianship and supervision to him. The petitioner further alleged that the mother neglected the child Altana D. by failing to provide medical and dental care and to address excessive school absences. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the mother neglected the children as alleged in the petitions. After a dispositional hearing, the court, inter alia, denied the mother's request for a suspended judgment and directed that the mother undergo a mental health evaluation. The mother appeals. "At a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner has the burden of establishing that the subject child has been abused or neglected by ‘a preponderance of evidence’ " ( Matter of Joseph L. [Cyanne W.], 168 A.D.3d 1055, 1056, 93 N.Y.S.3d 113, quoting Family Ct Act § 1046[b][i] ; see Matter of Cashmere T. [Andrew S.], 161 A.D.3d 1177, 1178, 77 N.Y.S.3d 477 ; Matter of Geoffrey D. [Everton D.], 158 A.D.3d 758, 759, 71 N.Y.S.3d 556 ). The Family Court's credibility determinations are entitled to deference on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Joseph L. [Cyanne W.], 168 A.D.3d at 1056, 93 N.Y.S.3d 113 ).
Here, contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's finding that she neglected the children is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i][B] ; Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840 ; Matter of Olivia R. [Kaila G.], 138 A.D.3d 1122, 1123, 30 N.Y.S.3d 296 ; Matter of Joyitha M. [Reshmi M.], 121 A.D.3d 900, 901, 994 N.Y.S.2d 393 ; Matter of Zakrya M., 18 A.D.3d 754, 755, 795 N.Y.S.2d 683 ).
There is no basis to disturb the Family Court's determination that it would not be in the children's best interests to enter a suspended judgment (see Matter of Tamara D. [Randolph P.], 120 A.D.3d 813, 991 N.Y.S.2d 377 ). Further, the court providently exercised its discretion in directing the mother to undergo a mental health evaluation, as a parent's capacity to properly supervise the children is a concern in determining the best interests of the children (see Matter of Jaheem M. [Cymon M.], 174 A.D.3d 610, 107 N.Y.S.3d 34 ; Matter of Dazahnae S. [Derek S.], 126 A.D.3d 802, 803, 2 N.Y.S.3d 903 ).
BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN and LASALLE, JJ., concur.