IN RE: a Child Neglect Proceeding B.P. (DOB 2009) (2025)

In this newly filed child protective proceeding, where the Administration for Children's Service ("ACS") sought a remand of the child, B.P. (DOB: 2009 - 16 y.o.).¹ The remand was granted at arraignment on July 11, 2025, and the subject child was placed in the care and custody of the Commissioner and was restrictively remanded to remain at the Zucker Hillside Hospital for one (1) week or until such time when a placement for the child is secured by ACS OPA. At the time of arraignment, the attorney for the child and the respondent mother, L.G.M. (hereinafter "Respondent Mother"), consented to the remand. The Respondent Mother was granted regular and reasonable visitation with the subject child, consistent with ACS policy and such would occur at the subject child's place of hospitalization between then and the next court date. Further, the Respondent Mother was permitted liberal telephonic and video visitation with the subject child at her place of hospitalization.

On July 18, 2025, counsel for the Respondent Mother requested a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 via Order to Show Cause. The attorney for the child was in support of the application and requested return of her client to her mother. The hearing began on July 21, 2025, and continued on the following dates: July 24, 2025, July 29, 2025, July 30, 2025, and was completed on August 4, 2025.

THE EVIDENCE

Petitioner submitted the following into evidence:

The Attorney for the Child submitted the following into evidence:

The Court submitted the following into evidence:

THE TESTIMONY

The Agency's Direct Case

CPS Williams

Petitioner called as its first witness, Child Protective Specialist, Williams (hereinafter "CPS Williams"). CPS Williams testified that the family initially came to her attention in April 2025 and the concerns at the time were an altercation between the subject child and her siblings. Additional concerns included that the subject child had left the home, did not return until 2:00AM, mobile crisis needed to be called, and that the Respondent Mother was not managing the subject child's behavior.

CPS Williams testified that she and the CARES worker conducted a joint home visit with the Respondent Mother, L.P., C.P., and the subject child in April 2025. CPS Williams stated she spoke with the Respondent Mother on the day of case assignment in April 2025 and explained the nature of the visit and asked her if she knew why CPS was there. CPS Williams testified that the Respondent Mother stated that CPS was there because of the altercation between her and her children. CPS Williams then stated the Respondent Mother discussed the children's behaviors, what was happening in home, and explained ongoing issues between the subject child and the other children as the subject child gets anxious. CPS Williams stated that the CARES worker, C.P., and L.P were present during this conversation with the Respondent Mother.

CPS Williams further testified that she spoke to the child, L.P., who stated that there was ongoing conflict between her and the subject child. L.P. continued by stating that the subject child does not behave, goes out to see guys, comes back with items she has no business using, the subject child was making videos in an older man's car on Instagram, and would come back with marijuana. CPS Williams testified that L.P. stated she spoke to the Respondent Mother and the Respondent Mother would not do anything. L.P. disclosed to CPS Williams that she cannot manage the subject child, and the subject child does not listen to her.

CPS Williams also testified that she spoke to the child, C.P.. According to C.P. she has an issue with the subject child not listening to the Respondent Mother. Further, C.P. disclosed to CPS Williams that the subject child was not allowed to go out and come back when she pleases, but the subject child went out for two days. According to C.P., the Respondent Mother allows the subject child to do whatever and gives in to the subject child.

CPS Williams testified she spoke to the shelter's social worker, Ms. Calderon. Ms. Calderon stated that there was a previous case that went to FARS in relation to the Respondent Mother not being able to maneuver the subject child's behavior. Ms. Calderon further stated to CPS Williams that she had tried on several occasions to help the family; however, this was unsuccessful because the Respondent Mother did not always follow through. CPS Williams testified that around May 2025, the shelter made referrals for the Respondent Mother to do a mental health evaluation as it was needed to be referred and transferred to supportive housing.

Further CPS Williams testified that the agency's plan to support the family included a meeting with the PPRS agency worker, Ms. Ramirez, from Forestdale. According to CPS Williams Ms. Ramirez stated that she had the case but was unable to make progress with the case. CPS Williams testified that an elevated risk conference ("ERC") needed to be scheduled at that time. According to CPS Williams the conference was required only because the family was receiving general preventive where they would go in twice a month and the ERC and transfer to Family Treatment and Rehabilitation program ("FTR") would give the family more support.

CPS Williams testified that at the ERC meeting there was an agreement to transfer the family to FTR, where a program and worker would be assigned to the Respondent Mother. CPS Williams stated that the FTR program would go into the home once or twice per week, where they would sit with the Respondent Mother to make both medical and mental health appointments, follow up with the Respondent Mother, and help the Respondent Mother in whatever way needed. CPS Williams also testified that two of the children have asthma and did not have asthma medications.

CPS Williams further testified that during this time the subject child was AWOC from the shelter and a joint meeting needed to be held.⁴ CPS Williams stated that the following week the Respondent Mother accepted services, however as CPS Williams was entering the building the Respondent Mother was leaving and needed to reschedule the joint meeting. CPS Williams stated that a virtual meeting was requested, but the Respondent Mother did not attend. CPS Williams states that as a result the services never ended up starting. CPS Williams testified that she attempted to make a referral to the outreach program, however the Respondent Mother stated she did not have a phone for contact.

CPS Williams testified that the subject child left the shelter in early May and was missing for three (3) weeks. CPS Williams stated that she assisted the Respondent Mother with making a missing person's report and obtaining a PINS warrant for the subject child. According to CPS Williams the subject child returned on or around the end of May 2025.

CPS Williams further testified, without specificity of dates, that a second home visit took place 2-3 days after the initial visit and that the purpose of the visit was to have a conversation with the family to see how the agency could implement services and support the family. CPS Williams testified that she saw the subject child during this visit and observed her pacing back and forth. According to CPS Williams the Respondent Mother was in the living room at the table and the children, C.P. and L.P., were in the bedroom. CPS Williams requested to speak to the subject child first and attempted to engage her, but the subject child stated she wanted to leave. CPS Williams asked the subject child where she was going, and the subject child stated she was going to the park. CPS Williams testified that the subject child was observed to be very anxious while pacing back and forth. According to CPS Williams the subject child stated that everyone hates her, she does not get along with her sisters and wanted to go to the park to hang out with friends. CPS Williams further testified that the Respondent Mother asked the subject child to wait, and the subject child became irate and began to curse, however CPS Williams notes the subject child spoke in Spanish and was not sure what was said. CPS Williams testified that the subject child tried to pick up the couch and was hitting her head on the side of the door. According to CPS Williams, the Respondent Mother tried to calm the subject child down, however the subject child shoved and hit the Respondent Mother. According to CPS Williams the other sisters were just looking while this occurred. CPS Williams observed the subject child throwing herself on the floor and banging her head against the floor. CPS Williams called 911. According to CPS Williams police officers came the day before for an emotionally disturbed child and "they knew what it was about." CPS Williams testified that 911 escorted the subject child to Jamaica Hospital and she explained to the Respondent Mother to go with the subject child. CPS Williams testified that the other children went to the Respondent Mother's boyfriend's home. According to CPS Williams the subject child was then admitted to Jamaica Hospital and was there for two to three days.

CPS Williams further testified that since April 25, 2025, the subject child had been in Jamaica Hospital three times and was currently at Zucker Hillside. CPS Williams stated that Ms. Calderon, shelter social worker, sent her a detailed email around June 19, 2025, as to what happened and why the subject child was at Zucker Hillside. According to CPS Williams she did not speak to the subject child about this email. According to CPS Williams, the email from Ms. Calderon stated that the subject child came home, and a meeting was held in the room downstairs with Ms. Persaud, the shelter program director. CPS Williams continued to testify that the children, L.P. and C.P., had "bad stuff" to say about the subject child. CPS Williams stated that the Respondent Mother had to take the subject child back to the unit. CPS Williams testified that the subject child got upset and was observed to be emotionally disturbed and 911 was called. CPS Williams stated that she reached out to the Respondent Mother and asked what happened, the Respondent Mother stated that she had to take the subject child back to the hospital.

According to CPS Williams, the Respondent Mother was in the Samaritan Village Shelter in June 2025 and her last day there was June 28, 2205. CPS Williams also testified that the Respondent Mother went to Peru in early July 2025 and came back to New York on July 4, 2025.

CPS Williams testified that she spoke to the Respondent Mother regarding her own mental health concerns. The Respondent Mother disclosed to CPS Williams that she "just gets anxious sometimes." CPS Williams then questioned the Respondent Mother regarding an ACS progress note on her mental health diagnosis, and the Respondent Mother stated that that was before, and she no longer has that diagnosis. CPS Williams testified that she made a referral to NY Psychotherapy and the Respondent Mother missed the appointment for June 1, 2025. CPS Williams stated there was follow up by the PPRS worker so they could walk the Respondent Mother to her appointment. CPS Williams stated that a second appointment at NY Psychotherapy was scheduled for June 5, 2025, however the Respondent Mother asked that this be rescheduled as one she had given her phone to one of her daughters.

CPS Williams testified that on June 27, 2025, a child safety conference was held to discuss the options were available for the subject child. According to CPS Williams the Respondent Mother stated she wanted the subject child to come home, would go back to the PATH shelter, and would try to get the subject child's mental health services in place. CPS Williams testified that the Respondent Mother was asked how she would get the subject child's mental health services in place if the subject child leaves, the Respondent Mother only stated she will try her best.

CPS Williams testified that the agency's plan for the subject child was to look for a facility where she can her educational needs met and her mental health services, including medication management. According to CPS Williams, there was a meeting scheduled with JCCA on July 24, 2025, for this facility placement. CPS Williams testified that a co-worker visited the subject child at the hospital and reported that the subject child was doing okay, but after the visit she was visibly upset.

On cross examination by the attorney for the subject child, CPS Williams testified that in January 2025, the subject child and her sisters came to live with the Respondent Mother. CPS Williams testified that prior to living with the Respondent Mother, the subject child and her sisters were with their father, A.P. in Peru for 6-7 years. CPS Williams testified that she spoke to A.P. 2-3 times during her investigation. CPS Williams testified that she also spoke to A.P. when the subject child went AWOC the first time. CPS Williams testified that A.P. stated that the subject child struggled with her mental health and school when in Peru. A.P. disclosed to CPS Williams that the subject child was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity ("ADHD") and depression from the "floating hospital." CPS Williams testified that A.P. was not aware of the exact name of the subject child's diagnosis but stated it was similar to the Respondent Mother's diagnosis. CPS Williams further testified that A.P. told her that the subject child was recommended to take medication and to see a clinician in Peru. CPS Williams testified that from January 2025 through ACS involvement, she only knew the medication the subject child came with only lasted one month. CPS Williams testified that when she became involved in the case the subject child did not have any medications.

CPS Williams testified that she did not speak to the floating hospital, however the Respondent Mother provided the record to her dated February 26, 2025. CPS Williams testified that the Respondent Mother brought her three daughters to the floating hospital. CPS Williams noted prior to her involvement in March 2025, CARES was involved with the family. CPS Williams testified that from March 2025 through April 30, 2025, she was assigned and there was no police involvement with the family. CPS Williams testified that the Respondent Mother had agreed to preventive services in March 2025 and that it had begun, however although preventive services been accepted by the Respondent Mother the "interaction was not forthcoming." According to CPS Williams the FTR program was then recommended by ACS when she became involved with the family. CPS Williams testified that the FTR program provided a higher level of care and would go into the home more times per month.

CPS Williams clarified that during her initial home visits she was made aware of a dispute between the sisters and witnessed a dispute on May 1, 2025. CPS Williams testified that the subject child was looking for shirt but could not find it. CPS Williams testified that the other 2 children, L.P. and C.P., were in the room. CPS Williams testified that she spoke to C.P. and L.P., but the conversation with L.P. was not at length. CPS Williams testified that C.P. disclosed that she and the Respondent mother had a good relationship. CPS Williams testified that C.P. also stated that when she and subject child were in Peru the subject child had the same issues, in that she was running away. CPS Williams testified that when the subject child came to the USA she would not listen and would be aggressive by cursing and screaming. CPS Williams testified that L.P. disclosed that the Respondent mother provided a positive routine for them but was upset about the subject child's actions and the issues she created in the home. CPS Williams testified that the children, L.P. and C.P., were sent to Peru on July 4, 2025, and have remained there. CPS Williams testified that the subject child has been in the hospital and that the subject child has never lived with the Respondent Mother without the children, L.P. and C.P., since January 2025.

CPS Williams testified that the subject child is doing "okay" in the hospital per a case worker. CPS Williams testified that she had not personally spoken to the subject child since she has been on medications but was notified by a caseworker that the subject child reported the medications made her feel better. CPS Williams testified that there was an incident where the subject child was screaming uncontrollably. CPS Williams testified that she emailed with the hospital on July 23, 2025, which included a meet and greet with JCCA. CPS Williams testified that the subject child has not had an evaluation done by ACS and she was only aware of the evaluations from the floating hospital and Zucker Hillside. According to CPS Williams Zucker Hillside informed her the subject child's diagnoses are major depressive disorder ("MDD") and anxiety but could not remember specifically. According to CPS Williams she spoke to two doctors, who stated they had attempted to reach out to the Respondent Mother to have her speak to the hospital. CPS Williams further testified that the Respondent Mother was then in regular communication with the hospital, she provided consent for treatment of the subject child. CPS Williams testified that the subject child had been accepted to an intensive day treatment program.

CPS Williams testified that on June 27, 2025, she made contact with proposed placement resource, J.. CPS Williams indicated that J. was not willing to care for the subject child and another proposed resource, "did not want to be a part of this", so CPS Williams did not reach out to him.

On cross examination by counsel for the Respondent Mother, CPS Williams testified that she did not witness the children, L.P. and C.P., picking on the subject child during her initial home visit. CPS Williams testified that the children, L.P. and C.P., were in a separate room and the subject child was in her bedroom pacing back and forth. CPS Williams testified that the Respondent Mother spoke to the subject child in Spanish. According to CPS Williams the Respondent Mother explained that the subject child was looking for a shirt, went into the room, started screaming at L.P. and C.P., then started going back and forth in Spanish. According to CPS Williams a safety plan was discussed with the Respondent Mother, where she agreed to call 911 when in crisis, remove knives and sharp objects. CPS Williams testified that the Respondent Mother did not remove knives and sharp objects, as they were still present on several visits thereafter.

CPS Williams stated that on June 12, 2025, she spoke to the subject child with a Spanish interpreter. At the time the subject child had been coming from the park. The subject child disclosed to CPS Williams that in the past her sister would mock her. According to CPS Williams, at this time FTR services were in place and the worker, Gerard, visited the home. CPS Williams testified that Gerard spoke with the subject child on June 26, 2025, while she was at Zucker Hillside. The subject child disclosed to Gerard that she engages in self-harm due to arguments with her sisters. The subject child further disclosed to Gerard that she cut herself a long time ago because she would get into arguments with her sisters and became stressed. The subject child stated that she is often alone because her sisters said she is annoying.

CPS Williams stated that she was not sure how many times the Respondent Mother had visited the subject child since she had been admitted to Zucker Hillside. CPS Williams noted that the Respondent Mother could not visit the subject child on the day of her admission as the Respondent Mother stated she tested positive for COVID-19, which she reported to the FTR worker on June 23, 2025.

CPS Williams testified that from June 28, 2025, through July 4, 2025, the Respondent Mother could not visit the subject child as she was in Peru with the children, L.P. and C.P.. She spoke with the Respondent Mother briefly while she was in Peru and the Respondent Mother stated she was coming back to the USA to care for the subject child. She stated the Respondent Mother returned to the USA around July 4, 2025, and since the case was filed the Respondent Mother has visited the subject child. She further testified that the Respondent Mother signed HIPPA release and consents for the subject child. Additionally, she testified that she did not ask the doctors or social workers at the hospital how frequently the Respondent Mother visited the subject child.

CPS Williams testified that she was unsure whether the subject child was evaluated by mobile crisis on April 30, 2025. She testified that on May 1, 2025, the subject child was seen by Queens General Hospital and was also seen on May 2, 2025. CPS Williams stated that on May 2, 2025, the subject child was discharged from Queens General Hospital and had received a referral for outpatient psychiatrist evaluation the Thursday following her discharged, but this was not complied with, and the appointment was not kept. She testified that the Respondent Mother stated that the subject child was not home for the subject child to complete the appointment.

CPS Williams testified that in January 2025, health insurance was a barrier for the family as the children just arrived in the United States and did not have insurance. She further testified that L.P. and C.P. did an intake at NY Psychotherapy in May and that same was initiated by C.P.. She testified that L.P. did not continue with the services.

She further testified that the Respondent Mother had not been taking her medication as prescribed as she saw a bottle that was for 15 days and based on the date of fill the Respondent was 8 days in and only 3 days were taken. It was not clear to the Court when this was observed or what medication this involved. CPS Williams further testified that the Respondent showed the medication to the FTR worker and told her that she is willing to engage in treatment. She testified that a referral was made in June, and she thought that the Respondent accepted it but then she noted that the Respondent did not make the intake appointment. She further testified that there were appointments on June 2 and June 5 and two unspecified dates that the Respondent did not attend. She testified that the Respondent would give her "excuses" such as not having health insurance, having lunch with her daughters and another tine stated that she had no phone as she gave it to one of her daughters whose phone had broken. She testified that since FTR came onto the case that there have been no appointments or outreach. She further testified that the Respondent claimed she did not have a phone.

CPS Williams testified that FTR closed due to Respondent being nonresponsive and not engaging. She testified that Respondent completed a psychological evaluation intake appointment on July 14, 2025. and same was done to help her receive supportive housing. CPS was unaware if the Respondent attended an appointment at Wonder Years Psychiatry on July 21, 2025. In discussing an email sent by Ms. Calderon CPS Williams testified that the child appeared upset because her sisters were saying hurtful things about her and had made some sort of social media post where hurtful things were said about the subject-child. CPS Williams testified that the Respondent has never refused her entry into the home, never refused to speak with her, never denied her access to the children, provided documents to her on some occasions, and gave her HIPPAS and consent forms. CPS Williams testified that the social worker provided the hospital discharge papers to her.

CPS Williams testified that PPRS Forestdale said that thy could not work with the Respondent as it was unsuccessful, however, she testified that they did not inform her that this was because of a phone issue. CPS testified that Respondent told her and her social worker that she had a phone issue. No time frame was given as to when this occurred. CPS testified that the Respondent at some point, unspecified, obtained a phone and had never asked for assistance to pay the bill of the phone.

CPS testified that in May 2025, ACS determined that the family could benefit from a more intensive preventative model and that FPP and FTR were given to the Respondent who signed consents and agreed to work with them. CPS testified that Ms. Gerard, the FPP worker, used an interpreter when speaking to the children and that her and Ms. Gerard conducted home visits. CPS testified that they discussed goals which were for the Respondent to obtain psychiatric care and for them to accompany Respondent to mental health appointments as needed. CPS did not recall if there was any discussion as to assisting Respondent with medication management. COS testified that obtaining supportive housing was not a goal and that the application was completed through the shelter not through ACS. She further testified that an IEP for the child was not a goal but that the Respondent went to school for IEP signing right before school closed. She further testified that PPRS can be reinstated if the child is returned to the mother. CPS testified that MSTCAN is another service that is more intensive than FTR and that MSTCAN therapists would meet with the parent and child together and independently. CPS testified that on June 26, 2025, the Respondent called her and told her that she could benefit from homemaking. CPS stated that when she got to the apartment that he asked her if the state of the apartment is why she needed homemaking and that she needed to keep her children accountable for their chores. CPS testified that a referral was not made as the Respondent does not qualify for homemaking because of the shelter. There was no further elaboration as to why that would be the case. CPS testified that the Respondent had a home health aide ("HHA") but that it was cancelled due to noncompliance. Further elaboration as to what this non-compliance and the time frame was not put on the record. CPS testified that they could try to refer her as the Respondent qualifies for same due to her diagnosis.

CPS testified that she spoke with the child, L.P., on May 6, 2025, and that L.P. told her she has a strong relationship with her mother and that her mother is the best in the world. CPS testified that L.P. told her that her and her mom have open conversations and that her mother cooks regularly for the family. CPS testified that she spoke with C.P. who also said she had a good relationship with her mother and also confirmed that Respondent cooks regularly for the family and tries to take care of them the best she can.

CPS testified that on July 28, 2025, they had a meeting at the JCCA campus in White Plains and the intake director asked the child why she was in the hospital to which she responded because she had a fight with her sisters. CPS testified that she was not present at this meeting, but her supervisor attended. CPS stated that she knew that the meeting generally went well. CPS testified that she does not believe that JCCA, an RTC, if a secure facility and stated that it is not a lockdown facility but rather a campus and that the child could run away if she tried.

CPS testified that she spoke with Dr. Turay (phonetic) who is a doctor at Zucker Hillside and their recommendation for the child to enter an intensive day treatment program, NYC Children's Center at Bergen Street. CPS testified that the program is bilingual and would have schooling, medication management, and group counseling and is 45 days long. Other than that CPS testified that she was not sure how the program runs. CPS testified that she was unsure if the child could enroll in the IDT while at the RTC.

CPS testified that Dr Goltz attended the meeting at JCCA and indicated that the subject child's self-harming behaviors have increased since she learned that she may not go home with her mother. She testified that she is cutting at the hospital and injuring her head. CPS testified that these were superficial cuts and that the self-harm had stopped previously when the child began to take her medication. CPS testified that she was not aware if the child knew she was not going home but that she was aware that the child had begun to self-harm again.

Attorney for Agency did not re-direct CPS Williams.

On July 30, 2025, the Agency rested.

Respondent's Direct Case

Respondent Mother

The attorney for the Respondent Mother called the Respondent Mother as their first and only witness. The Respondent Mother testified that prior to January 2025, her daughters lived in Peru, and she then brought them to the USA for better opportunities. The Respondent Mother testified that she prepared for her daughters to return to the USA by going to the family welcome center so the daughters could come to the USA, made phone calls for school, stayed at a friend's home then went to a shelter. The Respondent Mother testified that her daughters lived with their father and a housekeeper. The Respondent Mother testified that the subject child does not speak English. The Respondent Mother further testified that her daughters had never been removed by ACS. The Respondent Mother testified that she enrolled her daughters in school the week after their arrival. She testified that first they looked at John Adam's High School, which had a bilingual program but unfortunately did not have a vacancy. As a result, the children were enrolled in Epic North High School, however there is no bilingual program. She testified that she registered them with a pediatrician at the "floating hospital." She further testified that the children now have medical insurance. The Respondent testified that at first the sisters were bonding but when they started going to school C.P. and L.P. started pushing the subject-child to the side and the subject-child felt sad. She testified that the child was handling the conflicts by first crying and then having an outburst that involved screaming. The Respondent testified that she would put them in individual rooms to try and handle the conflict or take them out for time out. She testified that she would try to soothe the subject-child by hugging her and things like that.

She testified that C.P. and L.P. are now back in Peru where they are residing. She testified that she made this decision as she needed to be with the subject-child who needs more help and that it was a hard decision for her to make. She testified that ultimately, she felt it was the right decision as she could now focus on the subject-child and the treatment that she needs. She testified that the child has PTSD, depression and some anxiety and harms herself. She testified that she was diagnosed this past month at the hospital. She further testified that she was previously diagnosed in Peru with ADHD. Prior to the child being admitted to Zucker Hillside the child was seen at the emergency room at Queens General hospital per the Respondent's testimony. The Respondent testified that she spoke to the doctors at Queens General and told them that she was really scared and that she felt the child needed to be "internal  ⁵ " and needed advanced therapy. She testified that upon release of the child they did not give her instructions but gave her follow up appointments and family therapy. She testified that she did not go to the appointments as the child was not with her as she "escaped," which she clarified as meaning she ran away from home.

The Respondent testified that since the child has been at Zucker Hillside for a little over a month and that she has visited her but that initially she could not as she was diagnosed with COVID-19. She testified that she told the ACS worker that she had COVID-19 when she visited her at the home and that she told the shelter worker that she was scared because the child was hospitalized, and she did not have a phone. She testified that she routinely visits the child three times a week and calls her the other four days.

She testified that when the subject-child "escaped" that she was compliant with ACS and the shelter's recommendations and filed a missing person's report and spoke to a detective. She testified that she hopes that the child would not run away again as now she is on medication but that if it were to happen, she would go through the same process. She testified as to her commitment to do everything for the child to receive treatment.

She testified that she is diagnosed with depressive disorder and schizoaffective disorder and sees a psychiatrist for medication management through the Magnolia Shelter. She testified that she last saw them on July 25, 2025, and that before being treated at Magnolia she was receiving her prescribed medication through Jamaica Hospital. She testified that even if she leaves the women's shelter, she can see her doctor and that they would give her one month of medication while she finds an outside provider. She testified that she just did an intake at Wonder Years Psychiatry and has an upcoming appointment on August 8, 2025. She testified that she currently takes Abilify, Gabapentin, and Sertraline and pick them up once a month. She testified that she takes her medication regularly three times a day. She testified that she is being assisted by her legal team in obtained a therapist with the help of her social worker. She further testified that she underwent a mental health evaluation at Magnolia Shelter for use for her application for supportive housing. She testified that she had appointments at NY Psychotherapy in June and missed them as they do not take her insurance. She now changed her insurance, and it is accepted at Wonder Years Psychiatry.

She testified that if the subject child is released to her that she would go straight to PATH with her and work on getting supportive housing. She is willing to engage in mental health treatment, see a psychiatrist, comply with recommendations from that psychiatrist, see an individual therapist and engage in family therapy with the subject child. She also is prepared to ensure that the subject child complies with her services and medication and will use best efforts to do so. She would also agree to a more intensive version of preventative services and homemaking services. She testified that the understands the discharge treatment plan will be IDT, which also includes schooling, and she testified that she will also help her daughter have an IEP put in place.

On cross examination by the attorney for the child the mother testified that she learned about the IDT program through the attorney for the child and that she has been in contact with Zucker Hillside nurses to find out how her daughter is doing. She testified that she contacts her daughter through the nurses at Zucker Hillside who transfer the call to the subject child.

She testified that in when the child came to the United States that she came with a bag of medication and medical records. She further testified that she gave all the medical records of her daughter to the "floating hospital." While the child lived in Peru, she maintained contact with her and would follow up with her father as to the child's well-being. When the children first came to the United States she went to the "93rd Street Shelter" and was there until this case began. She testified that currently she is in a women's shelter without children and has a case manager there. She testified that if the subject child is returned to her care that she cannot stay at her current shelter and the plan would be do go to a new one. She testified that she was able to change the insurance without assistance and that her daughter, B.P., is on that insurance as well.

On cross examination by the attorney for the presentment agency the Respondent Mother testified that the child came to her in January 2025 with her sisters and that all children were born here in the United States but moved to Peru when they were 5 and 4 around 2013/2014. She testified that at that time she lived in Eastern Pennsylvania in a "normal" apartment and stayed with her mom and began working. She testified that she sent the children to Peru so that they could see her mom and the country. She further testified that she "maybe" sent them there to avoid them being placed into foster care. She testified that when she moved these three children to Peru that she had two other children who were placed in the care of social services in Pennsylvania. She further testified that they were placed in the care of social services because they were "acting out" with their grandmother. She testified that she spoke to CPS Williams about the other two children being removed from her care but could not recall if she said they were removed because she was "sick." She testified that those two children were 12 and 10 at that time. She testified that the State of Pennsylvania did not tell her that she was unable to care for her children but that the children were never returned to her and were adopted.She testified that she began living in supportive housing around September-November 2024 and then went to Peru to retriever her daughters. She testified that she was in supportive housing due to a mental health diagnosis.

She testified that the child came from Peru with medication for thirty days and that when she ran out, she went one month without medication because she weas trying to make appointments at the floating hospital for the subject child, but they did not have a unit for behavioral health for adolescents. She further testified that the child began her medications again at the end of April. She testified that prior to coming to live with her that the subject child was already displaying behavioral issues, such as running away and did not attend school for one year in Peru. She testified that she tried to set boundaries with the child and that the child followed her instructions but noted that nobody likes to be disciplined. She testified that that when she is disciplining the child that the child does not scream but that when she is getting into a "crisis" she gets emotional and screams and may need to go outside. She testified that the child does throw things and that the child's sisters would try to intervene, and the subject-child would fight them.

The Respondent Mother testified that C.P. and L.P. left for Peru on June 30, and she accompanied them and returned alone on July 4, 2025. She testified that the subject-child was psychiatrically hospitalized on June 23, 2025. She testified that when the subject-child was psychiatrically hospitalized that while she did not sign consents in person, she gave verbal consent to treatment on the 25th or 26th over the phone.

The Respondent Mother testified that she attended a Child Safety Conference ("CSC") on June 27, 2025, and that C.P. and L.P. were in attendance. She testified that during that conference she stated she would go to the hospital and sign consents but that she later called with the "lady downstairs" because she did not have a phone and gave her consent as she could not physically go in person.

She testified that on June 28, 2025, she signed out of her shelter placement. She testified that she left with C.P. and L.P. and left behind most of their belonging including clothing, several cellphones and a laptop. She testified that she never received a call from the shelter to retrieve her belongings and did not go back to pick up her things as she did not have a car to help her pick them up. She confirmed that she did not tell anyone from ACS that she was leaving the country with C.P. and L.P..

She testified that the subject child was hospitalized four time before between April and May 2025 because she was running away and because of the "crises she has sometimes." She testified that she was scared for the subject-child and that the subject child needed more advanced therapy. She testified that when the subject child was hospitalized in May at Queens General that she wanted her to stay to get therapy, but that Queens General did not do inpatient and sent her home. She testified that she tried to follow up but that the subject-child then ran away. She testified that she wanted the child with her and not to be inpatient. She testified that at that time the hospital did not give her medication for the subject child, and she could not follow up with any of the appointments and therapy because the child was gone.

She testified that the subject child gets emotional around the time of her menstruation per her observations and that the child would physically push her away a little bit to get some space. She denied that the child has bitten her and denied that the child has pulled her. She denied that the child hit her head on the floor and has never seen her throw a couch. She denied that she has ever seen the child sweep everything off the bed.

She testified that she was diagnosed with major depressive disorder in 2013 and schizoaffective disorder but disagrees with the schizoaffective disorder diagnosis and does not know when it was diagnosed. She testified that she does not have a diagnosis of bipolar disorder but does have anxiety and an old PTSD diagnosis. She testified that she is currently not engaged in individual therapy but has an appointment on Thursday (8/7/25) at 9:15AM. She could not recall the last time she engaged in individual therapy. She denied telling CPS that she only takes her medication when she feels like it and had no recollection of that conversation. She testified that she was diagnosed with COVID-19 on June 18, 2025, and had it for two weeks. She testified that due to that she was unable to comply with PPRS in additional identifying phone and internet issues as an added barrier to compliance. She testified that the child has a US and Peruvian passport, and she has a US passport only. She testified that an older half-sister who lives in New Jersey named E.P. has the child's passports.

On redirect she testified that now that the agency has been providing her with a MetroCard, she has been able to visit the hospital daily. There was a brief recross by the presentment agency where the Respondent testified that she would practice mindfulness with the child and play "relaxation music" and would be sure to remove all knives from the apartment.

Testimony of Dr. Goltz

On July 30, 2025, the Court had a conference with counsel related to concerns the Court had that accurate information related to the subject-child's current condition in the hospital not being before the Court and the necessity of that information for the Court to render a decision. Specifically, CPS Williams testified earlier that day that the child was cutting in the hospital, which raised a red flag of alarm for the Court as not enough information regarding this update was provided. As a result, the Court requested that counsel arrange for the subject child's treating psychiatrist, who is in the best position to advise the Court as to the subject child's current state and needs, to appear and provide testimony. Dr. Goltz, appeared on August 5, 2025, and all counsel were given the opportunity to question him. Dr. Goltz testified that he is an adolescent psychiatrist at Zucker Hillside Hospital and has been the subject child's treating physician since June 28, 2025. Dr. Goltz testified that the child was presently ready for discharge and has been for several weeks. He testified that since the time he deemed the child ready for discharge that no new concerns have arisen that would require the child to remain hospitalized. He testified that it is his clinical recommendation that the child enter an Intensive Day Treatment Program ("IDT"). He explained that an IDT program is a 30—45-day program which consists of school, group, more intensive therapy and medication management. He testified that IDT is the correct fit for this child as it provides a structured program and noted that the child is doing well in the hospital due to its structure. He testified that he believed that the child would be successful in the IDT program. He testified that he works with Ms. Dolan, who is the assigned social worker of the child at the hospital and that Ms. Dolan was at the IDT meeting and had begun the referral process for the child. He testified that the child is currently on 2mg of Abilify and is responding well to the medication. Dr. Goltz testified that the child intermittently self-harms. Dr. Goltz specified the self-harm engaged in by the child is scratching her arms and that since being in their unit she has done so once a week to once every other week. He testified that it has been a week since her last act of self-harm. He testified that the child self-reported to him that she has been self-harming for a number of years. He further testified that the child has triggers for self-harm and one of those triggers is the court matter. He testified that the child engages in this behavior as a means of coping to the stress and negative emotions and does so to relieve stress. He testified unequivocally that the child wants to go home to her mother. He testified that the child attended the meet and greet at JCCA Pleasantville on July 28, 2025, and on that date the child's negative behaviors increased as she learned she may not be going home to her mother. He testified that remaining at Zucker Hillside is also a stressor to the child. He further testified that when the Respondent Mother leaves a visit the child becomes triggered. He testified that the child is complaint with medication and receives DBT skills at the hospital. The child is not on any other medication. He testified that when the child is discharged that regardless of what plan is followed the child will be set up with a psychiatrist appointment at the hospital. He testified that while in the hospital the subject was educated on her medication and that the Respondent Mother was given discharge instructions for medications. He testified that they have done a psychiatric evaluation of subject child and that she is receiving individual therapy and that there is staff at the hospital who meet with her and coach her how to use skills. He testified that there are no regular psychiatrists or therapists on staff who speak fluent Spanish. He further testified that the child's knowledge of not being able to go home to her mother is exacerbating her stress and while not inducing major depression is inducing stress which leads to her self-harming behaviors. He testified that he has direct contact with the Respondent Mother and while it has been a couple of weeks since their last direct contact, she has been involved with the meetings they have had is aware of the child's medication. He testified that the program would have a mid-September start date. He further testified that upon discharge from the hospital they arrange for outpatient treatment where the children are living and then once the time comes, they transition to the IDT program. He testified that he understands that the Respondent Mother has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder but that he personally did not assess her for it and, therefore, cannot say if it is clinically true or not. He testified that he learned of the mother's diagnosis either through the Respondent Mother reporting it to him or to a psychiatry fellow.

The Attorney for the child did not present a direct case.

All counsel gave oral summations and the court reserved decision.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

A parent's application pursuant to Family Court Act section 1028(a) for the return of a child who has been temporarily removed "shall" be granted unless the Family Court finds that "the return presents an imminent risk to the child's life or health (Matter of Nyomi P., 224 AD3d 906, 906; Matter of Mikayla T., 199 AD3d 1009, 1010). The court's determination will not be disturbed if it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record) see Matter of Junny B., 200 AD3d 687, 688; Matter of Zaniyah R-T., 196 AD3d 584, 585. In making its determination the court" must weigh in the factual setting before it, whether the imminent risk to the child can be mitigated by reasonable efforts to avoid removal and "must balance that risk against the harm removal might bring, and it must determine factually which course is in the child's best interest" (Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 378; see Matter of Nyomi P. supra, The child protective services agency bears the burden of establishing that the child would be at imminent risk and therefore should remain in its custody.) See Matter of Skkyy M.R. 206, AD3d 660 661; Matter of Chase P. 199 AD3d 807, 809.

The Court found CPS Williams and the Respondent Mother generally credible, with some instances where complete credit could not be given, such as when the mother denied the extent of the child's emotional outbursts or her inability to fully explain why her other children were removed from her care or where CPS testified without specificity as to dates. The Court credits the testimony of Dr. Goltz entirely.

The Court had the unique opportunity to observe the Respondent Mother over several days of testimony. At each appearance she was appropriately dressed, respectful, polite, her demeanor was always appropriate, and she never struck the Court as a danger to herself or others during the many hours she was in the court room. She presented as a caring and loving person who has experienced significant hardships in her life. It is clear that she cares very deeply for her daughter and her well-being.

On July 30, 2025, on consent of all counsel, this Court ordered the Respondent Mother to submit to an expedited imminent risk evaluation. On August 1, 2025, the Respondent Mother submitted to such and met with Jared Seltzer, Psy.D.. In reviewing such it is noted in the risk assessment that "there are no acute risks observed in regards to [the Respondent Mother]'s mental health at this time." The Respondent Mother is noted to have been open to therapy and utilizing mindfulness techniques to manage her emotions. Further the assessment notes:

Based upon this examiner's clinical interview and mental status examination of [the Respondent Mother] she did not present with any psychotic symptoms, including paranoia, hallucinations, delusions, or disorganized thoughts. From the examiner's assessment at this time, she did not meet criteria for Schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. She did not impress as a danger to herself or others.

Additionally, the assessment notes that there was no significant parenting risks observed. The assessment does note recommendations including that the Respondent Mother continue in "outpatient mental health treatment, with [the] goal of continued stabilization of mood and anxiety symptoms, which have been addressed previously with medication. Individual therapy and psychotropic medication monitoring is advised"; preventive services; and that the Respondent Mother participate in the subject child's mental health treatment, with conjoined family sessions.

If the Court were to remand the child, she would be placed in the JCCA facility in Pleasantville, which is in White Plains, New York, where a bed is currently available for her. This is a significant distance from Brooklyn, New York, where the Respondent Mother resides and will pose a tremendous hardship for the mother to visit the child daily as she has been doing at the hospital once the court directed the Agency to provide the Mother with MetroCard so that she could afford to attend more than 3 visits per week. There has been no testimony on the record that JCCA will be able to adequately meet the needs of a non-English speaking child and if there are any bilingual services available to her there. It will be an extremely isolating experience for the subject child who will be unable to communicate with peers and adults, thus further exacerbating her stress and potentially self-harming behaviors. Adding to that isolation will be the mother's inability to frequently visit the facility. Further, JCCA is not a secure facility. There is nothing preventing the child from running away. On the other hand, if the child were to return to her mother at a minimum, she would be in the care of a familiar person who understands and speaks her language. Moreover, with supports in place and a commitment to comply with any orders the Court enters the Respondent Mother will now be in a better position to assist her daughter through this difficult time in her life. The Court recognizes that there is risk to this particular child no matter where the Court decides to place her, there is no perfect solution that the Court can craft. However, in balancing the harm, it is clear from the child's treating psychiatrist, who is in the best position to speak on the child's mental health, that the child will suffer more harm being separated from her mother. Dr. Goltz specifically stated that the child is actively harming herself by scratching her harms and banging her head because she wants to be returned to her mother's care. Dr. Goltz testified that the child should be returned to her mother and that not only is this case a trigger for the child, but her separation from her mother is a trigger as well. The Court took an additional step and requested that the Respondent Mother submit to a mental health evaluation. Upon review of the evaluation, Dr. Seltzer did not find that the Respondent Mother is an imminent risk, as indicated above. Further, Dr. Seltzer stated that the Respondent Mother impressed as amenable to interventions. Lastly, the child's two sisters, who were part of her difficulties are now no longer in the home. With that particular stress being removed from the child, her compliance with medication she received from Zucker Hillside and her mother being able to focus entirely on her, the child's risk of harm in her mother's care is reduced.

Based upon all of the testimony and evidence before the Court the Court, therefore, grants the Respondent's application and returns the child to her care under the below conditions, which must be complied with in their entirety.

The Court strongly advises the Respondent Mother that if these conditions are not complied with in full that this Court will entertain a FCA section 1027 application for the remand of the child to the care and custody of the commissioner.

All parties are to appear in Part 16 on MONDAY AUSGUST 11, 2025 at 10:30AM, virtually or in person, for allocution as to the conditions and selection of a preliminary conference/status date.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The Respondent Mother's request for a return of the subject child is GRANTED.

The subject child is released to the Respondent Mother under Court ordered supervision;

The Respondent Mother is to comply with ACS supervision, including announced and unannounced visits;

The Respondent Mother is to sign and maintain HIPPA releases/consents for herself and the subject child for the agency to monitor the family;

The Respondent Mother is to maintain contact with the agency and notify the agency of any change in her contact information or address;

The Respondent Mother is to continue engagement in her mental health services and follow all recommendations, including medication management;

The Respondent Mother is to ensure the subject child continues in her own mental health services, including attendance at the IDT program, and follow all recommendations, including medication management;

The Respondent Mother is to immediately notify law enforcement and the agency if the subject child AWOC's for more that 24 hours;

The Respondent Mother is to comply with intensive PPRS/FPP and any recommended services;

The agency is to immediately refer the family for intensive PPRS/FPP services;

The agency is to immediately refer the family to MSTCAN services, if the family qualifies;

The Respondent is to submit her passport and the US and Peruvian Passport of the child to this Court immediately.

This Constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court

Notify all Counsel and parties.

Dated: August 08, 2025

Brooklyn, New York

Hon. Rosa Maria Astuto, JFC

FOOTNOTES

1.   There are three children in this family, B.P., C.P. and L.P. At the time of filing C.P. and L.P. returned to Peru to reside with their father and are not subject children in the instant neglect proceeding.

2.   Petitioner's Exhibit 8 were admitted into evidence subject to this Court's future ruling on proposed redactions submitted by the Attorney for the Child.

3.   Petitioner's Exhibit 9 was admitted into evidence subject to this Court's future ruling on proposed redactions submitted by counsel for the Respondent Mother.

4.   According to CPS William's testimony, the exact timeframe of the subject child AWOCing from the home was not established, but that the subject child had generally been leaving the Respondent Mother's home and care.

5.   The Court took this to mean inpatient.

Rosa Maria Astuto, J.