IN RE: MOSHAE L. (Anonymous). (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Westchester County (Arlene A. Gordon–Oliver, J.), dated August 8, 2023.  The order of fact-finding and disposition, upon a decision of the same court dated April 5, 2023, made after a fact-finding hearing, and after a dispositional hearing, inter alia, found that the mother neglected the child Moshae L. and neglected and, in effect, derivatively neglected the child Sephira L., and directed that the children remain in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Westchester County.

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

The subject children, Sephira L. and Moshae L., were born in 2015 and 2017, respectively.  The petitioner, Westchester County Department of Social Services (hereinafter DSS), commenced these related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging that the mother neglected Moshae L. and Sephira L. Evidence was presented at a fact-finding hearing that the mother struck Moshae L. across his face, in the presence of Sephira L., because he was being loud, wanted to play, and did not want to go to sleep.  Further evidence was presented that the mother, who suffers from mental health issues including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and anxiety, failed to comply with prescribed medication management and treatment plans.  Evidence was also presented that Moshae L.’s doctor advised the mother that the child may have attention deficit disorder and the mother expressed concerns that he may also have autism, but the mother failed to have him evaluated by a medical professional.  After fact-finding and dispositional hearings, the Family Court, inter alia, found that the mother neglected Moshae L. and neglected and, in effect, derivatively neglected the child Sephira L., and directed that the children remain in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Westchester County.  The mother appeals.

“ ‘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 Shayla G. [Lakisha C.], 233 A.D.3d 682, 684, 222 N.Y.S.3d 157, quoting 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;  see Matter of Shayla G. [Lakisha C.], 233 A.D.3d at 684, 222 N.Y.S.3d 157).  “ ‘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;  see Matter of Shayla G. [Lakisha C.], 233 A.D.3d at 684, 222 N.Y.S.3d 157;  Matter of Oliver A. [Oguis A.-D.], 167 A.D.3d 867, 868, 90 N.Y.S.3d 142).  “Where ․ ‘the hearing court is presented with sharply conflicting accounts regarding the subject events, and chooses to credit the testimony of certain witnesses over that of others, its determination will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record’ ” (Matter of Skyli V. [Jamol V.—Shaneka E.], 224 A.D.3d 913, 915, 206 N.Y.S.3d 363, quoting Matter of Shalom A. [Codjo A.], 215 A.D.3d 825, 827, 186 N.Y.S.3d 370).

“ ‘Although parents have a right to use reasonable physical force against a child in order to maintain discipline or to promote the child's welfare, the use of excessive corporal punishment constitutes neglect’ ” (Matter of Raveena B. [Khrisend R.], 209 A.D.3d 640, 641, 175 N.Y.S.3d 340, quoting Matter of Kaylarose J.H. [Rena R.D.], 160 A.D.3d 953, 955, 72 N.Y.S.3d 482;  see Matter of Paul M. [Tina H.], 146 A.D.3d 961, 962, 48 N.Y.S.3d 679).  “Even a single incident of excessive corporal punishment may suffice to sustain a finding of neglect” (Matter of Joshua T. [Kenisha T.], 196 A.D.3d 491, 492, 146 N.Y.S.3d 848).

Here, DSS established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the mother neglected Moshae L. by inflicting excessive corporal punishment upon him.  The mother's use of corporal punishment rose to the level of neglect since she struck Moshae L., in Sephira L.’s presence, with such force that a red mark remained visible on Moshae L.’s face for more than 15 hours from his arrival at day care (see Matter of Veronica M. [Ana M.], 229 A.D.3d at 627, 216 N.Y.S.3d 10;  Matter of Alexander S. [Gabriel H.], 224 A.D.3d 907, 911, 206 N.Y.S.3d 341).  The mother also failed to take accountability, denied striking Moshae L., and exhibited a pattern of using excessive corporal punishment.  Deferring to the Family Court's credibility findings, we conclude that the court properly determined that the mother's use of corporal punishment was excessive.

Moreover, “ ‘[a] neglect finding is proper upon proof of the causal connection between a parent's mental illness and requisite potential harm to the child’ ” (Matter of Bethany R. [Bethmarie R.], 202 A.D.3d 690, 692, 158 N.Y.S.3d 623, quoting Matter of Kiemiyah M. [Cassiah M.], 137 A.D.3d 1279, 1280, 28 N.Y.S.3d 411;  see Matter of Nialani T. [Elizabeth B.], 164 A.D.3d 1245, 1246, 83 N.Y.S.3d 206).  “ ‘Even though evidence of a parent's mental illness, alone, is insufficient to support a finding of neglect of a child, such evidence may be part of a neglect determination when the proof further demonstrates that the parent's condition creates an imminent risk of physical, mental, or emotional harm to the child’ ” (Matter of Precise M. [Tawana M.], 215 A.D.3d 680, 681, 186 N.Y.S.3d 346, quoting Matter of Maurice M. [Suzanne H.], 158 A.D.3d 689, 690–691, 68 N.Y.S.3d 740).  “Proof of a parent's ‘ongoing mental illness and the failure to follow through with aftercare medication is a sufficient basis for a finding of neglect where such failure results in a parent's inability to care for [his or] her child in the foreseeable future’ ” (id., quoting Matter of Bella S. [Sarah S.], 158 A.D.3d 703, 704, 70 N.Y.S.3d 571;  see Matter of Bibi H. v. Administration of Children's Servs.-Queens, 210 A.D.3d 771, 773, 178 N.Y.S.3d 148).  In addition, “[a] neglected child includes a child whose parent has failed to provide ‘the child with adequate ․ medical ․ care’ ” (Matter of Mia G. [William B.], 146 A.D.3d 882, 883, 45 N.Y.S.3d 516, quoting Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i][A]).  “ ‘To find medical neglect, there must be a determination that the parent did not seek or accept medical care, and that such failure placed the child in imminent danger of becoming impaired’ ” (id., quoting Matter of Shawndel M., 33 A.D.3d 1006, 1006, 824 N.Y.S.2d 335).  “A parent's unwillingness to follow a recommended course of psychiatric treatment which results in the impairment of a child's emotional health may support a finding of neglect” (Matter of Jaelin L. [Kimrenee C.], 126 A.D.3d 795, 796, 5 N.Y.S.3d 246).

Here, DSS established by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother neglected the children since she lacked insight into her ongoing mental health issues.  The mother's failure to comply with prescribed medication management and treatment plans placed the children at imminent risk of harm (see Matter of Precise M. [Tawana M.], 215 A.D.3d at 681, 186 N.Y.S.3d 346;  Matter of Bibi H. v. Administration of Children's Servs.-Queens, 210 A.D.3d at 773, 178 N.Y.S.3d 148).  In addition, DSS established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the mother failed to provide an acceptable course of treatment in light of the advice she received to have Moshae L. evaluated for autism, placing him in imminent danger of physical, mental, or emotional harm (see Matter of Jaelin L. [Kimrenee C.], 126 A.D.3d at 797, 5 N.Y.S.3d 246).

The mother's remaining contentions are either without merit or academic in light of our determination.

CONNOLLY, J.P., GENOVESI, DOWLING and LOVE, JJ., concur.