IN RE: CAMDEN J. (2023)

DECISION AND ORDER

On March 3, 2023, the Monroe County Department of Human Services, Division of Social Services (MCDHS) moved for summary judgment against Respondent, Parent Substitute, Nakiyah S. (Respondent S.). Based upon Respondent S.’ conviction for Assault in the Second Degree in Monroe County Court, this Court found both that there was no triable issue of fact and that Rai'Anna B. (DOB:XX/XX/2019) is a child who was severely abused.

On January 26, 2022, the child Rai'Anna, almost 3 years old, while in the care of Respondent S. was scalded with hot water in a bathtub after she soiled the bed. Rai'Anna sustained second degree burns to the bottom of her buttocks and to her genital area to the extent that her skin was peeling. Rai'Anna also had other pre-existing wounds and scars. The Court made a finding of derivative neglect as to Respondent S. as to the child Camden J. (DOB: XX/XX/2018).

The Court held a dispositional hearing for the sole purpose of determining whether to grant Petitioner MCDHS’ application for an Order of Protection, pursuant to Family Court Act § 1056(4), prohibiting any and all contact between Respondent S. and the subject children until each child's respective eighteenth birthday. The Court finds MCDHS met its burden and proved by a preponderance of the evidence that all contact between Respondent S. and the subject children shall be prohibited until each child's respective eighteenth birthday.

The dispositional hearing was held over four days and concluded on August 1, 2023. The Court heard the testimony of five witnesses, MCDHS Caseworker Shanetra T.; Court Appointed Special Advocate, Leah H.; Omeka M. (Respondent S.’ Mother); Respondent S.; and Jennie A. (the children's foster mother). The Court received into evidence: Petitioner's Exhibit 1 (7 pages), REACH program records for Rai'Anna B. for care provided between January 26, 2022 and February 3, 2022, including correspondence from physician Elizabeth M., DO to MCDHS stating the burn pattern on Rai'Anna B. is most consistent with a “dunking event” and evaluation of both Rai'Anna and her brother Camden J. found both children to have loop marks on their bodies consistent with being hit with a belt or cord; Petitioner's Exhibit 2 (23 pages including 6 pictures of loop marks on Camden J.’s body), REACH program records and pictures related to Camden J. for care provided between January 26, 2022 and February 3, 2022; Petitioner's Exhibit 3 (38 pages including 4 pictures of the dunking event injuries to Rai'Anna B.), Rochester General Hospital records for Rai'Anna B. for care provided between January 26, 2022 and February 3, 2022; Petitioner's Exhibit 4 (33 pages), records of the Rochester Police Department relating to Camarin B., Nakiyah S., Camden J., and Rai'Anna B. and the property located at XXX Goodman Street, Rochester, New York for events occurring between January 26, 2022 and February 3, 2022; Petitioner's Exhibit 5 (Verisma CD and redrope filled with hard copy of Verisma CD), Strong Memorial Hospital records for Rai'Anna B. for care provided between January 26, 2022 and February 3, 2022; Petitioner's Exhibit 6 (30 pages), photographs of Camden J. and his injuries, Petitioner's Exhibit 7 (17 pages), photographs of the child Rai'Anna B. and her injuries; Petitioner's Exhibit 8 (1 page), MCDHS’ proposed dispositional plan dated December 13, 2022; and Petitioner's Exhibit 9 (20 pages), certified copy of transcript of the plea of Camarin B. on July 8, 2022 before the Hon. Caroline Morrison, Monroe County Court Judge. The Court granted Respondent S.’ request to submit closings in writing on or before September 12, 2023.

The Court found the testimony of Caseworker Shanetra T. and Jennie A. (the children's foster mother) to be credible. The Court has afforded Court Appointed Special Advocate Leah H.’s testimony appropriate weight since she testified that she had few interactions with Respondent S. At trial Respondent S.’ Mother, Omeka M. acknowledged her own memory problems due to a traumatic brain injury. Further Ms. M.’s testimony was rebutted by the testimony of foster parent Jennie A. Most significant, Respondent S.’ own testimony belied her request for access to the children. Respondent S. did not take full responsibility for her actions, claiming at times that she used excessive corporal punishment to save the children from future harm. Still the Court was able to discern what role Respondent S. played in providing guardianship to the subject children (see Matter of Louise E.S. v W. Stephen S., 64 NY2d 946, 947 [1985] [respect is to be accorded the trial judge's advantage in observing the demeanor of witnesses]; see also Hendrickson v Hendrickson, 147 AD3d 1522 [4th Dept 2017]; and see Matter of Chyreck v Swift, 144 AD3d 1517 [4th Dept 2016]).

Respondent S. testified that she only pled guilty to a class D felony offense of Assault in the Second Degree against the child Rai'Anna B. to end the criminal proceedings. She lacked remorse for her actions and appeared dismissive of the injuries the child sustained. She denied wrongdoing for hitting both children with a belt to “keep the children safe from themselves.” Respondent S. also failed to obey an existing no contact order of protection by recording her voice on a bear given to Rai'Anna B. purchased from “Build-A-Bear” in violation of that criminal court order of protection.

Respondent S. testified that she is no longer a member of the children's household, is not related by blood or marriage to the children, or to any member of the children's household and that she has not seen the children since January 2022.

Both Attorneys for the Children strongly support MCDHS’ application for an order of protection, pursuant to Family Court Act § 1056(4), prohibiting any and all contact between Respondent S. and the subject children until each child's respective eighteenth birthday. The purpose of an attorney for the children is “to help protect [a child's] interests” (see Matter of McDermott v Bale, 94 AD3d 1542, 1543 [4th Dept 2012]).

THE COURT HAVING SEARCHED THE STATEWIDE REGISTRY OF ORDERS OF PROTECTION, THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY AND THE FAMILY COURT CHILD PROTECTIVE RECORDS, AND HAVING NOTIFIED THE PARTIES AND THE ATTORNEYS OF THE RESULTS OF THESE SEARCHES AND THE COURT HAVING CONSIDERED AND RELIED UPON THE SAME:

NOW, THEREFORE, based on all of the evidence presented, it is hereby

ORDERED, that it is in the children's best interests that the Court enter an order of protection against Respondent S., pursuant to Family Court Act § 1056(4), until each child's respective eighteenth birthday.

PURSUANT TO SECTION 1113 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AN APPEAL MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY APPELLANT IN COURT, THIRTY-FIVE DAYS FROM THE MAILING OF THE ORDER TO THE APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT, OR THIRTY DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD UPON THE APPELLANT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST.

Dandrea L. Ruhlmann, J.