Hyperlawhypertext legal database In re Michelle H. 129 A.D.3d 727

← Cases

In re Michelle H.

129 A.D.3d 727 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2015-06-03 English

Judges Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Barros, JJ., concur.

Contents

Majority

p. 727
In the Matter of Michelle H. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Filandra C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Matthew H. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Filandra C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Melanie C. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Filandra C., Appellant. Edgar C., Nonparty Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.)
[10 NYS3d 325]

Appeals from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Queens County (Barbara Salinitro, J.), dated June 28, 2012, and two orders of disposition of that court (Marybeth S. Richroath, J.), both dated January 16, 2013. The order of fact-finding, insofar as appealed from, found, after a hearing, that the mother derivatively neglected Melanie C. and Matthew H. The first order of disposition, after a hearing, awarded custody of Melanie C. to her father. The second order of disposition, after a hearing, among other things, placed Matthew H. in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York.

Ordered that the appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the orders of disposition and is brought up for review on the appeals from the orders of disposition; and it is further,

Ordered that the orders of disposition are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

p. 728
The Family Court properly found that the mother derivatively neglected the subject children upon finding that she neglected their older sibling. The record showed derivative neglect of the children Melanie C. and Matthew H. based on, inter alia, the evidence of excessive corporal punishment of the older child and other actions of the mother which demonstrated “such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm” to any child in her care (Matter of David H. (Octavia P.), 127 AD3d 1084 , 1086 [2015]; see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [1]; Matter of Yanni D. [Hope J.], 95 AD3d 1313 , 1314 [2012]; Matter of James S. [Kathleen S.], 88 AD3d 1006 , 1006-1007 [2011]; Matter of Jordan W., 59 AD3d 558 [2009]).

Further, the Family Court did not err in awarding custody of Melanie C. to her father (see Family Ct Act § 1052 [a] [ii]; see also Matter of Matthew M., 46 AD3d 903 [2007]; Matter of Jasmine N., 15 AD3d 491 [2005]; see generally Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 , 171 [1982]).

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cases cited