IN RE: an Article 10 Neglect Proceeding Oswego County Department of Social Services (Petitioner) KH (Respondent) CC (Respondent) CC aka FC (DOB xx/xx/xxxx) AC (DOB (xx/xx/xxxx) (2026)

The above-captioned matter is before this Court pursuant to a neglect petition filed by the Oswego County Department of Social Services (hereinafter known as OCDSS) against the respondents KH and CC.

Procedural History

On June 5, 2025, OCDSS filed a petition alleging child neglect against the respondent parents, KH (hereinafter "mother") and CC (hereinafter "father"). The subject children are CC aka FC (DOB xx/xx/xxxx) and AC (DOB xx/xx/xxxx). The allegations contained in the petition are (1) that the respondents failed to provide adequate mental health care to the subject children (2) that the respondents failed to provide adequate care, guardianship and supervision to the subject children and (3) that each child has been derivatively neglected due to the neglect of the other child pursuant to FCA 1046(a)(i).

The initial appearance was held on June 18, 2025, wherein temporary orders were issued upon consent. Thereafter, pre-trial settlement conferences were held on September 2, 2025, and November 18, 2025, but no agreement was reached.

On December 18, 2025, the fact-finding trial commenced. Attorney Felasco, Attorney Rodak, AFC Dodd, AFC Kerwin, and Counsel for OCDSS were present. Petitioner's Exhibit 1- Certified Records from XXX Pediatrics and Petitioner's Exhibit 2- Certified Records from Upstate Hospital were received into evidence, subject to further arguments regarding the weight of the documents and the admissibility of any hearsay contained within the documents. OCDSS witnesses Dr. SF from XXX Pediatrics, and XXX Elementary school/home liaison JM testified. OCDSS caseworker EG commenced testimony. Matters were held over for further proceedings.

On January 14, 2026, there was a virtual, attorneys only conference for scheduling purposes.

On February 6, 2026, the fact-finding proceedings continued. OCDSS witness EG concluded her testimony. OCDSS rested. Counsel for both mother and father stated they intended to call their clients to testify. The matter was adjourned for further proceedings.

On February 9, 2026, the fact-finding proceedings were scheduled to continue, however, both respondents waived their right to continue with the fact-finding hearing and made an admission to neglect. Prior to taking the admissions, the Court made clear it would keep an open mind, but it would make no promises regarding disposition. Mother's admission was that "on multiple occasions she had hand to vagina contact with subject child FC and that physical contact caused the child harm; additionally, mother failed to bring the child to a therapeutically necessary mental health appointment thus placing the child's mental health at risk of harm. Subject child AC is a derivatively neglected child." Father's admission was that "he knew or should have known that subject child FC had untreated mental health needs and failed to take any action to follow through with obtaining necessary treatment. Subject Child AC is a derivatively neglected child." The matter was adjourned for disposition.

Dispositional Proceedings

On April 15, 2026, proceedings on disposition commenced. Attorney Felasco, Attorney Rodak, AFC Dodd, AFC Kerwin, and OCDSS Attorney Jan Dobrosielski were present. At issue in the discussions prior to disposition was whether the Court would consider entering a disposition of a suspended judgment. All counsel, including counsel for OCDSS, were willing to agree to a suspended judgment disposition, however the Court was not convinced a suspended judgment was in the best interests of the subject children and therefore, the Court did not approve the proposed settlement. The proposed services and other protective provisions requested by OCDSS were not in dispute.

In the interest of judicial economy, the parties agreed to resolve the dispositional proceedings with a hearing on stipulated facts. The following exhibits were admitted into evidence on consent of counsel: Stipulated Exhibit 1- Proposed Disposition Stipulation for mother KH; Stipulated Exhibit 2- Proposed Disposition Stipulation for father CC; Stipulated Exhibit 3- OCDSS Court Summary dated March 25, 2026; Stipulated Exhibit 4- certified records from Upstate University Hospital; Stipulated Exhibit 5- Letter from ERB dated March 24, 2026; Exhibit 6- Psychological Evaluation Report for mother KH; and Exhibit 7- Psychological Evaluation Report for father CC.

A court may take judicial notice of its own prior proceedings. See Gugino v. Tsvasman, 118 AD3d 1341 (4th Dept. 2014) and Matter of A.R. and Others (F.A.), 309 AD2d 1153 (4th Dept. 2003). This Court takes judicial notice of all prior proceedings, stipulations, and orders in this case. Finally, the Court asked Counsel if there was any objection to the Court considering the previously admitted medical records (Petitioner's Fact-Finding Exhibits) as part of Stipulated Exhibit 4 for purposes of disposition. As there was no objection, the Court will also consider the previously admitted medical certified medical records as part of Stipulated Exhibit 4.

All parties waived a closing statement.

Applicable Law and Analysis

"The key issue in a dispositional hearing is the best interests of the child, and the court must protect the child from any potential threat of future abuse or neglect." Matter of Cameron C., 283 A.D2d 946 (4th Dept. 2001). Although the parties consented to the entry of a suspended judgment, the Court was not persuaded that the proposed disposition was in the children's best interests and therefore declined to approve the agreement. While settlements of Family Court proceedings are generally encouraged, the best interests of the child are paramount. The Court will not approve a settlement merely to expedite proceedings if the court determines the best interests of the child are being compromised by the result. "No agreement of the parties can bind the court to a disposition other than that which a weighing of all factors involved shows to be in the child's best interest." Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89 (1982).

New York Family Court Act (FCA) § 1052 (a) sets forth the potential dispositional outcomes that the Court may impose at the conclusion of a dispositional hearing including: a suspended judgment, a release of the child, placement of the child, a supervision order, an order of protection, or an order of custody. Although there is limited caselaw regarding when a suspended judgment is appropriate, it is clear that a suspended judgment is discretionary. New York courts have identified four factors for consideration: (1) respondent's prior history; (2) the seriousness of the offense; (3) respondent's remorse and acknowledgment of the abusive/neglectful nature of his or her act; and (4) respondent's amenability to correction, including compliance with court-ordered services and treatment and the respondent's efforts in rehabilitating the relationship with the children. In re Leenasia, 154 AD3d 1 (1st Dept. 2017) and Matter of MN, 16 Misc 3d 499 (Fam. Ct. Monroe County 2007).

In the present case, the Court has considered the enumerated suspended judgment factors, as well as taking into account the stipulated disposition exhibits, and taking judicial notice of all prior proceedings as set forth above. The Court is not aware of any prior child protective history on the part of the Respondents. The neglectful conduct which was ultimately admitted to however, was serious and was not an isolated incident, but rather was ongoing over the course of a number of years. While the Respondents have expressed a willingness to engage in services and made admissions outwardly, they have failed to accept responsibility for their role in the neglect proceedings. During KH's Psychological Evaluation with Dr. Kohlbrenner, Ms. KH alleged she was reported for child neglect because she " missed a medical appointment scheduled for her daughter. She alleged she informed the pediatrician of the dates her work schedule would accommodate ; however, the pediatrician set the appointment date without consulting with her and consequently she was unable to make it due to her responsibilities at work." Ms. KH also reported there were allegations against her of "possible sex abuse" (emphasis added). (See Stipulated Exhibit 6, page 1-2). Mr. CC., reported that OCDSS was "concerned because he did not take his daughter to an appointment. He reported no one ever spoke to him about the issue of the appointment. He reported that he and his daughter's mother have 'gone above and beyond' these past years attempting to meet her needs." (See Stipulated Exhibit 7, page 1-2). Despite Ms. KH. and Mr. CC.'s admission to neglect, their statements to Dr. Kohlbrenner demonstrate a lack of meaningful insight into the behavior which led to the neglect finding. The Respondents' statements indicate to the Court that they fail to appreciate the seriousness of their conduct and the impact it has had on the subject children.

In addition to the factors discussed above, the Court must consider the best interests of the subject children. "The factors to be considered in making the [best interests] determination include the parent or caretaker's capacity to properly supervise the child, based on current information and the potential threat of future abuse and neglect." Matter of Jaheem M., 174 AD3d 610 (2nd Dept. 2019). Stipulated Exhibit 3, the Court Summary dated March 25, 2026, and Stipulated Exhibit 5, the letter from ERB, subject child FC's counselor indicated that child FC is struggling to engage in therapy. FC reported to their caseworker that they would like to increase their counseling sessions, however, they "do not believe this would make their mother happy." Subject Child AC is reportedly doing well in therapy, but was suspended from school for five days in March for destroying a bus seat. A review of Stipulated Exhibit 4, Upstate Hospital Records indicates that as of March of 2026 subject child FC indicated that the child feels "He does not have the support of his parents. He does not have any other adult in his life who is supportive He states his brother tries to use his pronouns and he appreciates this " (Stipulated Exhibit 4, pages 37-38). A review of the Assessment indicates "Patient does not feel he has the support of his parents at this time .with acceptance and support of his affirmed gender, his mental health will likely improve." (Stipulated Exhibit 4, page 40).

In Matter of Noah P., 246 AD1398 (4th Dept. 2006), the Court explained that a suspended judgment "may be warranted where the parent has made sufficient progress in addressing the issues that led to the child's removal ." Although the Noah P. case involved termination proceedings, the same underlying principle applies. There is no evidence to show the Respondents have made meaningful progress or benefit from services over the pendency of the proceedings. FC's own impression that they lack the support of their parents is not negated by any of the information before the Court. Accordingly, and considering the proof and the lack any evidence to the contrary, the Court concludes neither parent has made any meaningful progress nor has gained insight over their admitted behaviors nor gained insight from or any derived benefit from the services to overcome the issues which led to the petition being filed in the first place.

Conclusion

Based on the totality of circumstances as presented on the record before the Court, The Court is not persuaded that suspended judgment will serve the best interests of the subject children. Therefore, the Court finds that the children's best interests are served by the entry of a 12 month supervision order, which will require continued oversight by OCDSS, participation in Court ordered services, and will promote the safety and mental well-being of the subject children.And the Court, having considered the best interests and safety of the children, including whether the children would be at risk of abuse or neglect if returned to the parent(s) or other person(s) legally responsible, hereby orders the following:

ORDERED that the Respondents herein are placed under the supervision of the Oswego County Department of Social Services for a period of twelve months, or further order of the Court upon the following terms and conditions to be met by Respondents:

ORDERED that the Respondents, KH and CC, shall refrain from the use of corporal punishment and shall not condone the use of corporal punishment by others on the subject children; and it is further

ORDERED that the Respondents, KH and CC shall keep Oswego County Department of Social Services informed at all times of changes of address, household composition, telephone number, employment and/or any other information which may affect compliance with this order, within one (1) week of the change; and it is further

ORDERED that the Respondents, KH and CC, shall allow the Oswego County Department of Social Services safe access to the home for announced and unannounced visits and allow access to the subject children wherever they may be located; and it is further

ORDERED that the Respondents, KH and CC, shall cooperate with the Oswego County Department of Social Services, its Caseworkers, and any agency referred to in carrying out the goals of the Dispositional plan, which shall include meeting with the Caseworkers regularly and attending Service Plan Reviews; and it is further

ORDERED that the Respondents, KH and CC, shall sign all releases of information requested by Oswego County Department of Social Services as are required to carry out the terms of the Order of Disposition and to monitor the Subject Children's safety, and it is further

ORDERED that the Oswego County Department of Social Servies shall arrange, and the Respondents, KH and CC, shall attend, participate and engage in family counseling with an Oswego County Department of Social Services approved provider, and shall cooperate with all recommendations, including any further recommended counseling, until successfully clinically discharged, and it is further

ORDERED that the Oswego County Department of Social Servies shall arrange, and the Respondents, KH and CC, shall ensure that the Subject Child CC aka FC, undergoes gender affirming mental health counseling with an Oswego County Department of Social Services approved provider, and follow recommendations until successfully clinically discharged, and it is further

ORDERED that the Oswego County Department of Social Servies shall arrange, and the Respondents, KH and CC, shall ensure that the Subject Children CC aka FC and AC, attend counseling with an Oswego County Department of Social Services approved provider, and follow recommendations until successfully clinically discharged, and it is further

ORDERED that the Respondents, KH and CC, shall cooperate and comply with the Subject Children's Counseling, including conjoint participation if deemed appropriate by the Subject Children's counselor(s) until successfully clinically discharged, and it is further

ORDERED that the Respondents, KH and CC, are required to comply with the terms and conditions specified in the Order of Protection, for Subject Children CC aka FC and AC issued pursuant to Family Court Act § 1056, attached hereto and made part hereof, which shall expire July 21, 2027.

Thomas Benedetto, J.