Opinion
2013-10-30
In the Matter of DARRELL W. (Anonymous). Westchester County Department of Social Services, respondent; Tenika C. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Drayvon C. (Anonymous). Westchester County Department of Social Services, respondent; Tenika C. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Anaiyah C. (Anonymous). Westchester County Department of Social Services, respondent; Tenika C. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 3).
Maria Joy Frank, Yorktown Heights, N.Y. for appellant. Robert F. Meehan, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (James Castro Blanco and Eileen Campbell–O'Brien of counsel), for respondent.
Maria Joy Frank, Yorktown Heights, N.Y. for appellant. Robert F. Meehan, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (James Castro Blanco and Eileen Campbell–O'Brien of counsel), for respondent.
Cynthia Holfester–Neugebauer, Sea Cliff, N.Y., attorney for the child Darrell W.
Helene Bernstein, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the child Drayvon C.
Karen M. Jansen, White Plains, N.Y., attorney for the child Anaiyah C.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
In related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Westchester County (Davidson, J.), dated November 28, 2011, as, after a hearing, found that she had neglected the subject children and continued the children's placement in foster care.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( seeFamily Ct. Act §§ 1012[f] [i][B]; 1046[a][iii]; [b][i] ). While only one positive drug test result was referenced in the testimony at the fact-finding hearing, other evidence was adduced of the mother's repeated misuse of drugs without regular participation in a rehabilitative program. This evidence established a prima facie case of neglect and, therefore, neither actual impairment of the children's physical, mental, or emotional conditions, nor specific risk of impairment, needed to be established ( see Matter of Audrey K. [ Erik K.], 108 A.D.3d 717, 968 N.Y.S.2d 891;Matter of Sadiq H. [ Karl H.], 81 A.D.3d 647, 915 N.Y.S.2d 867;Matter of Paolo W., 56 A.D.3d 966, 867 N.Y.S.2d 753).
The mother's claim that she was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. Viewed in totality, the record shows that she received meaningful representation ( see Matter of Dylan Mc. [ Michelle M. Mc.], 105 A.D.3d 1049, 964 N.Y.S.2d 209;Matter of Christiana C. [ Carleton C.], 86 A.D.3d 606, 928 N.Y.S.2d 50).
The mother's remaining contention is without merit.