IN RE: SAAD A. (Anonymous). (2018)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Joan L. Piccirillo, J.), dated October 11, 2017.  The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, denied that branch of the parents' application which was pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 for the return of the subject child to the mother's custody.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and that branch of the parents' application which was pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 for the return of the subject child to the mother's custody is granted.

The petitioner commenced this neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 against the parents of the subject child, and made an application for removal pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027.  The Family Court granted the petitioner's application, and the parents applied pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 for the return of the child to their custody pending the outcome of the neglect proceeding.  After a hearing, the Family Court denied the parents' application.  The mother appeals.

Although it is undisputed that the child has since been returned to his parents' care, the mother's appeal is not academic, as the child's removal created a permanent and significant stigma (see Matter of Emmanuela B. [Jean E.B.], 147 A.D.3d 935, 935, 47 N.Y.S.3d 406;  Matter of C. Children, 249 A.D.2d 540, 540, 672 N.Y.S.2d 134).

“An application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028(a) for the return of a child who has been temporarily removed shall be granted unless the court finds that ‘the return presents an imminent risk to the child's life or health’ ” (Matter of Audrey L. [Marina L.], 147 A.D.3d 838, 839, 47 N.Y.S.3d 78, quoting Family Ct Act § 1028[a] ).  The court must “weigh, in the factual setting before it, whether the imminent risk to the child can be mitigated by reasonable efforts to avoid removal” (Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357, 378, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840;  see Matter of Esscence R. [Ebony B.R.], 158 A.D.3d 806, 806, 68 N.Y.S.3d 890).  “The court ‘must balance that risk against the harm removal might bring, and it must determine factually which course is in the child's best interests’ ” (Matter of Esscence R. [Ebony B.R.], 158 A.D.3d at 806, 68 N.Y.S.3d 890 quoting Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d at 378, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840).

Here, the record fails to provide a sound and substantial basis for the Family Court's determination (see Matter of Alan C. [Thomas C.], 85 A.D.3d 912, 913–914, 925 N.Y.S.2d 174).  Any concerns that the parents' substantial efforts to safety-proof their home were inadequate and subjected the child to possible risk of ingesting harmful substances did not amount to an imminent risk to the child's life or health that could not have been mitigated by reasonable efforts to avoid removal.  This is especially so under the circumstances of this case, where the petitioner had been directed to assist the family in safety-proofing the home and failed to do so (see Matter of Emmanuela B. [Jean E.B.], 147 A.D.3d at 935, 47 N.Y.S.3d 406;  Matter of Baby Boy D. [Adanna C.], 127 A.D.3d 1079, 1080, 9 N.Y.S.3d 73;  Matter of Jeremiah L., 45 A.D.3d 771, 771–772, 846 N.Y.S.2d 320).  Additionally, the mother presented evidence at the hearing establishing that she had taken substantial measures to safety-proof the home after the child was removed, and had taken the child to the doctor and dentist.  Therefore, the evidence did not establish that the return of the child posed an imminent risk to his life or health, since the offending circumstances had been remedied (see Matter of Alyssa S., 296 A.D.2d 462, 463, 744 N.Y.S.2d 719).

Accordingly, that branch of the parents' application which was pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 for the return of the child to the mother's custody pending resolution of the neglect proceeding should have been granted.

BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.