Opinion
2011-04-19
In the Matter of DESTINY H. (Anonymous). Westchester County Department of Social Services, appellant; Valerie B. (Anonymous), respondent.
Robert F. Meehan, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Eileen Campbell O'Brien of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth Lyle Bunting, White Plains, N.Y., for respondent.
Robert F. Meehan, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Eileen Campbell O'Brien of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth Lyle Bunting, White Plains, N.Y., for respondent.
Steven N. Ranellone, White Plains, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a child neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Edwards, J.), entered July 20, 2010, which, after a fact-finding hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Family Court failed to state on the record the facts which it deemed essential to its determination to dismiss the petition ( see Family Ct. Act § 1051[c]; Matter of Jose L. I., 46 N.Y.2d 1024, 1025–1026, 416 N.Y.S.2d 537, 389 N.E.2d 1059;cf. Matter of Jodi S., 179 A.D.2d 653, 578 N.Y.S.2d 598). However, remittal is not necessary because the record is sufficient for this Court to conduct an independent review of the evidence ( see Matter of Jose L. I., 46 N.Y.2d at 1026, 416 N.Y.S.2d 537, 389 N.E.2d 1059;Matter of Leon G., 7 A.D.3d 524, 776 N.Y.S.2d 77;cf. Matter of Austin v. Austin, 254 A.D.2d 703, 678 N.Y.S.2d 230).
Upon our independent review of the evidence, we discern no basis to disturb the Family Court's ultimate determination that the allegations of neglect were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct. Act § 1046[b][i]; Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357, 368, 371, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840;Matter of Tammie Z., 66 N.Y.2d 1, 3, 494 N.Y.S.2d 686, 484 N.E.2d 1038). Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the credible evidence did not establish that the mother failed to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision ( see Matter of Charles N., 83 A.D.2d 947, 443 N.Y.S.2d 11;cf. Matter of Antonio NN., 28 A.D.3d 826, 812 N.Y.S.2d 176;Matter of James HH., 234 A.D.2d 783, 652 N.Y.S.2d 633;Matter of Eric M., 90 A.D.2d 717, 455 N.Y.S.2d 780). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.