Opinion
2014-06-20
In the Matter of TRISTYN R. Cattaraugus County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; Jacqueline Z., Respondent–Appellant, and Joshua R., Respondent.
Erickson Webb Scolton & Hajdu, Lakewood (Lyle T. Hajdu of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant. Stephen J. Riley, Olean, for Petitioner–Respondent.
Erickson Webb Scolton & Hajdu, Lakewood (Lyle T. Hajdu of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant. Stephen J. Riley, Olean, for Petitioner–Respondent.
Michael D. Burke, Attorney for The Child, Olean.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, SCONIERS, VALENTINO AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Respondent mother appeals from an order adjudicating her son to be a neglected child. Contrary to the mother's contention, Family Court's determination that the subject child was derivatively neglected is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 1046[b][i]; Matter of Jonathan S., 53 A.D.3d 1089, 1090, 861 N.Y.S.2d 556,lv. denied11 N.Y.3d 709, 868 N.Y.S.2d 601, 897 N.E.2d 1085). We reject the mother's contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding of derivative neglect because the only allegation of misconduct occurred more than two years prior to the subject child's birth and was limited to the abuse of the mother's eldest child by respondent father, the subject child's father. The record reflects that the mother lacked an “ ‘understanding of the duties and obligations of parenthood and created an atmosphere detrimental to the physical, mental and emotional well-being of [the subject child]’ ” (Matter of Kaylene S. [Brauna S.], 101 A.D.3d 1648, 1649, 956 N.Y.S.2d 738,lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 852, 2013 WL 1760947). “[I]nasmuch as the paramount purpose of Family [Court] Act article 10 is the protection of the ‘physical, mental, and emotional well-being’ of children ..., and mindful of the particular vulnerability attendant to newborn infants such as the child herein ..., we conclude that Family Court's finding of derivative neglect is justified on this record” (Matter of Evelyn B., 30 A.D.3d 913, 917, 819 N.Y.S.2d 573,lv. denied7 N.Y.3d 713, 824 N.Y.S.2d 605, 857 N.E.2d 1136).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.