IN RE: Dominique LEEPER (2018)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County [James H. Dillon, J.], entered February 1, 2018) to review a determination of respondent.  The determination denied the request of petitioner to seal indicated reports.

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum:  Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a determination, following a fair hearing, finding that two indicated reports of maltreatment against her are relevant and reasonably related to employment in child care (see Social Services Law § 422[8][c][ii] ).  Contrary to petitioner's contention, we conclude that the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Garzon v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 85 A.D.3d 1603, 1604, 924 N.Y.S.2d 904 [4th Dept. 2011] ).  The evidence presented at the hearing established that, on two occasions over the course of approximately 11 years, petitioner subjected her children to violent outbursts, during which she destroyed property, physically assaulted a family friend, who cared for the oldest child, in the children's presence, and choked the oldest child (see Matter of DeRoberts v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 155 A.D.3d 1556, 1557, 65 N.Y.S.3d 613 [4th Dept. 2017];  Garzon, 85 A.D.3d at 1604, 924 N.Y.S.2d 904;  Matter of Castilloux v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 16 A.D.3d 1061, 1062, 791 N.Y.S.2d 755 [4th Dept. 2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 702, 800 N.Y.S.2d 373, 833 N.E.2d 708 [2005] ).  Petitioner also admitted, with respect to additional behavior underlying the second indicated report, that less than two years before the hearing she had been abusing marihuana to the point of being unable to care for her children.  Although she testified at the hearing that she had been rehabilitated, petitioner engaged in repeated acts of maltreatment and acknowledged that she had never attended professional counseling to address that behavior.  The record thus supports the finding that petitioner failed to recognize and address the causes of her detrimental behaviors and that she may therefore engage in those behaviors again (see Matter of Velez v. New York State Off. of Children, 157 A.D.3d 575, 576, 69 N.Y.S.3d 612 [1st Dept. 2018] ).  Based upon the foregoing, we perceive no reason to disturb respondent's determination that petitioner's acts of maltreatment are relevant and reasonably related to employment in child care.  We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.