Tina F. and Donald F., Respondents-Appellants. v. << (1999)

 Family Court's determination that the physical, mental or emotional condition of respondent Tina F.'s two-year-old son was in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of respondents' failure to exercise a minimum degree of care (see, Family Ct. Act § 1012[f][i] ) and that respondents' other children were derivatively neglected by respondents (see, Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Douglas E., 191 A.D.2d 694, 595 N.Y.S.2d 800) is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct. Act § 1046[b][i] ).   The record establishes that respondents routinely confined the two-year-old in a straightjacket-like device throughout the night and refused to allow the other children to comfort him when he cried.   That conduct demonstrates a fundamental defect in respondents' understanding of the duties of parenthood (see, Matter of Brandiwell K., 247 A.D.2d 931, 668 N.Y.S.2d 790).   Contrary to respondents' contentions, expert testimony is not necessary to establish neglect (see, Matter of Lonell J., 242 A.D.2d 58, 61, 673 N.Y.S.2d 116), and the statutory requirement of “imminent danger” (Family Ct. Act § 1012[f][i] ) does not require proof of actual injury (see, Matter of Madeline R., 214 A.D.2d 445, 446, 625 N.Y.S.2d 512).   We reject the contention of respondents that their voluntary discontinuation of the offensive practice precludes a finding of neglect (see, Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Denise J., 87 N.Y.2d 73, 80, 637 N.Y.S.2d 666, 661 N.E.2d 138).   The out-of-court statements of the children were corroborated by respondents' admissions, and the children's statements corroborated each other (see, Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 118-119, 124, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 914).   We have considered respondents' remaining contentions with respect to the fact-finding hearing and conclude that they are without merit.   Respondents failed to preserve for our review their contentions concerning the informal nature of the dispositional hearing (see, Matter of April B., 242 A.D.2d 926, 927, 663 N.Y.S.2d 458;   Matter of Vitti v. Vitti, 202 A.D.2d 917, 919, 609 N.Y.S.2d 686;  Matter of Michelle S., 195 A.D.2d 721, 722, 600 N.Y.S.2d 303).

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: