Majority
Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Richard Hoffmann, J.), dated April 1, 2016. The order granted the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the mother derivatively neglected the subject child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In this child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, commenced on January 19, 2016, the petitioner alleged that the mother derivatively neglected the subject child, Hope R, who was born on January 11, 2016, based upon prior findings that the mother neglected the child’s two older siblings and a finding made approximately ten months before the subject child’s birth that the mother permanently neglected one of the siblings. The verified petition in this proceeding also alleged that the mother failed to address the mental health condition that renders her incapable of properly caring for her children. In an order dated April 1, 2016, the Family Court granted the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, determining that the mother derivatively neglected the subject child.
The focus of the inquiry to determine whether a parent derivatively abused or neglected a child (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [1]) “ ‘is whether the evidence of abuse or neglect of one child indicates a fundamental defect in the parent’s understanding of the duties of parenthood. Such flawed notions of parental responsibility are generally reliable indicators that a parent who has abused [or neglected] one child will place his or her other children at substantial risk of harm’ ” (Matter of Jahmya J. [Crystal L.J.], 137 AD3d 1132 , 1133 [2016], quoting Matter of William N. [Kimberly H.], 118 AD3d 703 , 706 [2014]).
Here, the petitioner established, prima facie, that the subject child was derivatively neglected by the mother. The petitioner demonstrated that the mother failed to resolve the issues that resulted in the prior findings of neglect as to the subject child’s older siblings (see Matter of Phoenix J. [Kodee J.], 129 AD3d 603 , 603 [2015]; Matter of Tradale CC., 52 AD3d 900 , 902 [2008]), and that the conduct that formed the basis for the finding of permanent neglect as to one of the siblings was “sufficiently proximate in time to this derivative neglect proceeding such that it can reasonably be concluded that the condition still exists” (Matter of Alicia P. [Gregory P.], 123 AD3d at 1136 ; see Matter of Camarrie B. [Maria R.], 107 AD3d 409 , 409 [2013]; Matter of Jamarra S. [Jessica S.], 85 AD3d 803 , 803-804 [2011]). Moreover, the mother’s neglect and permanent neglect of the subject child’s siblings evidenced a fundamental defect in the mother’s understanding of the duties of parenthood (see Matter of Brandon T. [Guillaume T.], 114 AD3d 950 , 950 [2014]; Matter of T-Shauna K., 63 AD3d 420 , 420 [2009]; Matter of Amber C., 38 AD3d 538 , 540-541 [2007]). In opposition to the petitioner’s prima facie showing, the mother’s submission of only an attorney’s affirmation was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Matter of Alicia P. [Gregory P.],
Accordingly, the Family Court properly granted the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, determining that the mother derivatively neglected the subject child.
Mastro, J.P., Sgroi, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- In re Jahmya J. 137 AD3d 1132 at 1133 p. 947
- In re Alicia P. 123 AD3d 1135 at 1135 p. 948
- In re Dayann J.L. Orange County Department of Social Services 131 AD3d 1243 at 1244 p. 948
- In re Cruz 121 AD2d 901 at 903 p. 948
- In re Giovanni S. 98 AD3d 1054 at 1056 p. 948
- Suffolk County Deptartment of Social Services v. James M. 83 NY2d 178 at 182-183 p. 948
- In re Phoenix J. 129 AD3d 603 at 603 p. 948
- In re Tradale CC. 52 AD3d 900 at 902 p. 948
- In re Jamarra S. 85 AD3d 803 at 803-804 p. 948
- In re Brandon T. 114 AD3d 950 at 950 p. 948
- In re of Amber C. 38 AD3d 538 at 540-541 p. 948
- In re Vivien V. 119 AD3d 596 at 597 p. 949
- In re Alyssa WW. 106 AD3d 1157 at 1158-1159 p. 949