IN RE: Yu F. (Anonymous).  Administration for Children's Services (2014)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: Yu F. (Anonymous).  Administration for Children's Services, respondent;  Fen W. (Anonymous), appellant.

2013–06477 2013–06478 (Index No. N–18095 /12)

Decided: November 12, 2014

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J. MARK C. DILLON COLLEEN D. DUFFY BETSY BARROS, JJ.

Amy Mulzer, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Susan P. Greenberg of counsel), for respondent. Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Amy Hausknecht of counsel), attorney for the child. The Family Court properly determined that the petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the mother neglected the subject child by reason of her untreated mental illness, which rendered her unable to provide adequate supervision and guardianship, thus placing the child's physical, mental, and emotional condition in imminent danger of becoming impaired (see Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i][B];  Matter of Immanuel C.-S [Debra C.], 104 AD3d 615, 615;  Matter of Isaiah M. [Antoya M.], 96 AD3d 516, 517;  Matter of Cerenithy Ecksthine B. [Christian B.], 92 AD3d 417, 417;  Matter of Kira J. [Lakisha J.], 85 AD3d 1030, 1030).   At the fact-finding hearing, a psychiatrist who had diagnosed the mother with a psychosis disorder and had involuntarily hospitalized her overnight testified that, if returned to the mother, the child would be at risk of being neglected because of the mother's untreated mental illness.   The psychiatrist testified that the mother refused to provide contact information for anyone who could care for the child during her hospitalization, and had no plan for the child during her hospitalization.   She further testified that the mother told her that the then nine-year-old child actually took care of the mother.   A hospital social worker testified that, due to the mother's behavior, he had been unable to develop a discharge plan for the mother that ensured that she could safely care for the child.   In light of this testimony, the petitioner “was not obligated to prove that the child suffered past or present harm, since the evidence demonstrated that [she] was at risk of harm based on demonstrable conduct by the mother” (Matter of Immanual C.-S [Debra C.], 104 AD3d at 615;  see Matter of Kira J. [Lakisha J.], 85 AD3d at 1030;  Matter of Soma H., 306 A.D.2d 531, 531).