IN RE: LIANA A. (Anonymous). (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Caren Loguercio, J.), dated August 29, 2023, and (2) an order of fact-finding and disposition of the same court, also dated August 29, 2023.  The order of fact-finding, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the father neglected the subject children.  The order of fact-finding and disposition, insofar as appealed from, upon the order of fact-finding and after a dispositional hearing, found that the father neglected the subject children.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the order of fact-finding was superseded by the order of fact-finding and disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition;  and it is further,

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

The petitioner commenced these related neglect proceedings against the father of the two subject children.  After fact-finding and dispositional hearings, the Family Court, inter alia, found that the father neglected the children.  The father appeals.

The appeal from the order of fact-finding must be dismissed because the order of fact-finding was superseded by the order of fact-finding and disposition.  The issues raised on the appeal from the order of fact-finding are brought up for review on the appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition (see Matter of Harmony H. [Welton H.], 148 AD3d 1019, 1019).

In a child protective proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of proving neglect by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[f][i][B];  1046[b][i];  Matter of Khamari S. [Keith S.], 163 AD3d 826, 826).  “[A] party seeking to establish neglect must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, first, that a child's physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and second, 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 Jaylen S. [Richard S.], 214 AD3d 885, 885 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[f][i][B];  1046[b][i] ).

Contrary to the father's contention, the petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the father neglected the children.  The unrebutted evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing demonstrated that the father neglected the children by engaging in acts of domestic violence against the mother in the children's presence (see Family Ct Act § 1012[f];  Matter of Kyng T.B. [Theodore B.], 234 AD3d 682, 683).  In addition, the evidence established that the children's physical, mental, or emotional condition was in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the father's untreated mental health issues (see Matter of Hannah T.R. [Soya R.], 179 AD3d 700, 701) and his alcohol abuse (see Matter of Ava A. [Steven A.], 179 AD3d 666, 668).

Accordingly, the Family Court properly found that the father neglected the children.

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., WOOTEN, LOVE and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.