IN RE: L.K. (2026)

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sarah P. Cooper, J.), entered on or about November 19, 2024, to the extent it brings up for review a fact-finding order, same court, Judge, and date, which found that respondent mother neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.  Appeal from fact-finding order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.

The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, which established that the mother suffers from diagnosed and untreated mental illness, including PTSD, psychosis, and schizophrenia, that interfered with her judgment and parenting abilities, thus placing the child, who was less than one year old and totally dependent on her, at imminent risk of physical, mental, and emotional impairment (see Family Ct Act §§ 1046[b][i];  1012[f][i][B];  Matter of N.A.S. [V.H.], 217 A.D.3d 485, 486, 190 N.Y.S.3d 64 [1st Dept. 2023];  Matter of Ruth Joanna O.O. [Melissa O.], 149 A.D.3d 32, 39, 49 N.Y.S.3d 374 [1st Dept. 2017], affd 30 N.Y.3d 985, 65 N.Y.S.3d 122, 87 N.E.3d 154 [2017]).  The record shows that the mother suffers from paranoia, delusions, and psychotic behavior, and underwent multiple psychiatric hospitalizations, yet she believed that she did not need psychiatric care and had stopped taking her prescribed medication.  Evidence of actual injury to the child was not required to enter a finding of neglect because there is sufficient evidence that the child was at imminent risk of harm due to the mother's untreated mental illness (see Matter of Ruth Joanna O.O. [Melissa O.], 149 A.D.3d 32, 41, 49 N.Y.S.3d 374 [1st Dept. 2017], affd 30 N.Y.3d 985, 65 N.Y.S.3d 122, 87 N.E.3d 154 [2017]).

To the extent Family Court relied on the mother's medical records, these records were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, as they related to the mother's treatment, diagnosis, and discharge (see Matter of A.M. [Adgraile E.], 233 A.D.3d 481, 481, 222 N.Y.S.3d 437 [1st Dept. 2024]) and were properly relied upon by the court (see Matter of Jayden S. [Shalea S.], 159 A.D.3d 500, 501, 72 N.Y.S.3d 77 [1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 908, 2018 WL 2728156 [2018]).  Similarly, to the extent Family Court noted the mother's post-petition hospitalization, it was not improper insofar as it relates to her mental health history and failure to follow through with necessary treatment prior to the filing of the petition (see Matter of Jamoneisha M. [Ebony M.], 84 A.D.3d 650, 650, 924 N.Y.S.2d 331 [1st Dept. 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 709, 2011 WL 4089839 [2011]).

We have considered the mother's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.