IN RE: Rose G.-M. (Anonymous). (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Jonathan Z. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Erik S. Pitchal, J.), dated February 3, 2025.  The order of disposition, insofar as appealed from, upon an order of fact-finding of the same court dated January 28, 2025, made after a fact-finding hearing, finding that Jonathan Z. was a person legally responsible for the subject children Rose G.-M. and Joshuan G.-M. and that Jonathan Z. abused and neglected the subject child Rose G.-M. and derivatively abused and neglected the subject children Joshuan G.-M., David.  Z., and Cyruzz Z., directed that Jonathan Z. be precluded from parental access with the subject children David Z. and Cyruzz Z. while incarcerated.

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner commenced these child protective proceedings against Jonathan Z. (hereinafter the appellant) alleging, inter alia, that he abused and neglected the child Rose G.-M., for whom he allegedly was a person legally responsible.  The petitioner also alleged that the appellant derivatively abused and neglected the child Joshuan G.-M., for whom the appellant allegedly was a person legally responsible.  In addition, the petitioner alleged that the appellant derivatively abused and neglected the children David Z. and Cyruzz Z., both of whom he is the father.

Contrary to the appellant's contention, the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supported the Family Court's finding that the appellant was a person legally responsible for Rose G.-M. and Joshuan G.-M. The evidence showed that the appellant lived with the mother of those children and all four of the subject children for six years, providing financial support and childcare (see Matter of Tony C. [Kristine S.-Jadiel L.], 226 A.D.3d 1008, 1010, 209 N.Y.S.3d 559).

Contrary to the appellant's further contention, under the circumstances of this case, there was a sound and substantial basis in the record for the Family Court to direct that the appellant be precluded from parental access with David Z. and Cyruzz Z. while incarcerated (see Matter of Velasquez v. Kattau, 167 A.D.3d 912, 913, 90 N.Y.S.3d 125;  Matter of Smith v. Smith, 92 A.D.3d 791, 792, 938 N.Y.S.2d 601).

BARROS, J.P., VOUTSINAS, GOLIA and HOM, JJ., concur.