IN RE: REMI R.C.G. (Anonymous). (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Michael M. appeals from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Kings County (Melody Glover, J.), dated November 9, 2023.  The order of fact-finding, after a fact-finding hearing, found that Michael M. neglected the child Remi R.C.G. and derivatively neglected the child Myasia C. M.

ORDERED that the order of fact-finding is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner commenced these proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging, inter alia, that Michael M. (hereinafter the appellant), a person legally responsible for the child Remi R.C.G. and the father of the child Myasia C. M., neglected Remi R.C.G. and derivatively neglected Myasia C.M. After a fact-finding hearing, in an order of fact-finding dated November 9, 2023, the Family Court found that the appellant neglected Remi R.C.G. and derivatively neglected Myasia C.M. This appeal ensued.

“In a child neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject child is neglected” (Matter of Andrew M. [Brenda M.], 225 A.D.3d 764, 765, 207 N.Y.S.3d 580;  see Family Ct Act § 1046[b][i]).  “ ‘To establish neglect of a child, the petitioner must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) that the child's physical, mental, or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired, and (2) that the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship’ ” (Matter of Veronica M. [Ana M.], 229 A.D.3d 626, 627, 216 N.Y.S.3d 10, quoting Matter of Chloe P.-M. [Martinique P.], 220 A.D.3d 783, 784, 197 N.Y.S.3d 333).  “The focus of the inquiry with respect to derivative findings is whether the evidence of abuse or neglect of another child or children demonstrates such an impaired level of parental judgment so as to create a substantial risk of harm for the other child or children in the parent's care” (Matter of Katherine L. [Adrian L.], 209 A.D.3d 737, 739–740, 175 N.Y.S.3d 570 [internal quotation marks omitted]).  “ ‘Great deference is given to the Family Court's credibility determinations, as it is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses having had the opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe their demeanor’ ” (Matter of Ashlyn M. [Robert J.], 228 A.D.3d 939, 941, 214 N.Y.S.3d 138, quoting Matter of Amberlyn H.P. [Jose H.C.], 187 A.D.3d 920, 920, 130 N.Y.S.3d 368).

Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the Family Court properly found that the petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the appellant neglected Remi R.C.G. and derivatively neglected Myasia C.M. by engaging in acts of domestic violence against the mother in Remi R.C. G.’s presence while the mother was pregnant with Myasia C.M. (see Matter of Davena A. [Christopher A.], 232 A.D.3d 595, 597, 220 N.Y.S.3d 824;  Matter of Dalia G. [Frank B.], 128 A.D.3d 821, 823, 10 N.Y.S.3d 113).  Moreover, there is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are entitled to great deference (see Matter of Leah S. [Barnett V.], 228 A.D.3d 667, 669, 212 N.Y.S.3d 692).

The appellant's contention that the Family Court should have appointed a separate attorney to represent each of the children is unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Mary R.F. [Angela I.], 144 A.D.3d 1493, 1494, 41 N.Y.S.3d 341) and, in any event, without merit (see Matter of Child Welfare Admin. [Louis G.], 270 A.D.2d 259, 260, 703 N.Y.S.2d 523).

Accordingly, the Family Court properly found that the appellant neglected Remi R.C.G. and derivatively neglected Myasia C. M.

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WAN and GOLIA, JJ., concur.