IN RE: CARLENA B. (Anonymous). (2009)

In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Daniel Foster B. appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Nassau County (Marks, J.), dated March 5, 2008, which, after a hearing, inter alia, found that he neglected Carlena B. and, in effect, that he derivatively neglected Damien M., and, among other things, prohibited him from any contact with Carlena B. until he completed substance abuse treatment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court's findings that the father neglected his infant daughter, Carlena B., were supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct. Act § 1012[f][i][B];  § 1046[b][i];  Matter of Issiah C., 24 A.D.3d 438, 805 N.Y.S.2d 422).   The evidence established, inter alia, that the father knew or should have known of the mother's drug use and “failed to exercise a minimum degree of care in ensuring that the mother did not abuse drugs during the pregnancy” (Matter of K. Children, 253 A.D.2d 764, 765, 677 N.Y.S.2d 379).   The evidence further established that the father himself was a substance abuser (see Matter of Issiah C., 24 A.D.3d 438, 805 N.Y.S.2d 422), and that he failed to avail himself of drug rehabilitation therapy at the direction of the Nassau County Department of Social Services (see Matter of Kareem C., 253 A.D.2d 708, 678 N.Y.S.2d 96).

The Family Court properly, in effect, found that the older child, Damien M., was derivatively neglected (see Family Ct. Act § 1046[a][i];  Matter of K. Children, 253 A.D.2d at 765, 677 N.Y.S.2d 379;  see also Matter of Lemar H., 23 A.D.3d 383, 806 N.Y.S.2d 80).

The order of disposition, which required the father to complete substance abuse treatment before resuming contact with Carlena B., was in the best interests of Carlena B. (see Matter of Enrique T. v. Annamarie M., 15 A.D.3d 310, 790 N.Y.S.2d 109;  Matter of Tanya T., 252 A.D.2d 677, 675 N.Y.S.2d 237).