IN RE: TSOEDE L. (2021)

Order, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about June 16, 2020, insofar as it denied respondent mother's motion for an order amending an order of disposition, entered on or about June 26, 2019, to provide for a suspended judgment and permit the parties to submit a consent order to vacate the order finding neglect, entered on or about April 18, 2019, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the mother's post-dispositional motion to amend its June 26, 2019 dispositional order to include a suspended judgment and permit the parties to submit to a consent order to vacate the order of fact-finding entered on or about April 18, 2019, thereby vacating the finding of neglect and dismissing the petition (see Matter of [Sophia W.] [Tiffany P.], 176 A.D.3d 723, 111 N.Y.S.3d 110 [2nd Dept. 2019];  cf.  Matter of Leenasia C. [Lamarriea C.], 154 A.D.3d 1, 6–7, 59 N.Y.S.3d 355 [1st Dept. 2017]).

In April 2019, Family Court entered a finding of neglect, on consent of the mother without admission, based on findings that the mother neglected the eight-year-old child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment, scratching the child with her nails and beating the child with a phone charger cord and a belt leaving marks, scratches, large welts and bruises on the child's face, shoulders, abdomen and thighs, in various stages of healing, which resulted in physical and emotional harm to the child.  The record provides ample support for the court's determination that the mother had severely beaten the child, resulting in the child being diagnosed with Post–Traumatic Stress Syndrome and ongoing need for therapy.

In light of the severity of the conduct leading to the neglect finding, and the ongoing emotional harm to the child, the court providently exercised its discretion in determining that vacatur of the neglect finding would not be in the child's best interests (see Matter of Sophia W., 176 A.D.3d at 724–725, 111 N.Y.S.3d 110).  The court acknowledged that the mother had completed court-ordered services and engaged in therapy, but found that, while she apologized to the child, she failed to acknowledge, specifically, how her behavior affected the child or to show real insight into the behavior that precipitated the incident.  The mother also failed to come up with a plan for the future on how to address the child's resulting issues (see Matter of Inocencia W. [Yasha W.], 147 A.D.3d 865, 866, 47 N.Y.S.3d 93 [2d Dept. 2017]).  Best interest analysis, which requires consideration of a parent's ability to supervise a child and eliminate any threat of future abuse or neglect, supports the court's exercise of discretion to decline to grant a suspended judgment in these circumstances (see Matter of Sophia W, 176 A.D.3d at 724–725, 111 N.Y.S.3d 110).

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