IN RE: Farzana J. (Anonymous). (2026)

Submitted—June 11, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Queens County (Margaret Morgan, J.), dated January 15, 2025.  The order of fact-finding, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the father neglected the subject children.

ORDERED that the order of fact-finding is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In March 2021, the Administration for Children's Services (hereinafter ACS) commenced these proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging, inter alia, that the father neglected the subject children by perpetrating acts of domestic violence against the children's mother in their presence.  In an order of fact-finding dated January 15, 2025, made after a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the father neglected the children.  The father appeals.

In a child neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject child is neglected (see Matter of Winter D. [Rueben D.], 244 AD3d 848, 848).  “ ‘To establish neglect, [a] petitioner must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) that the child's physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired, and (2) that the actual or threatened harm to the child is due to 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 Asani J. [Assata A.], 245 AD3d 711, 712, quoting Matter of Chaim R. [Keturah Ponce R.], 94 AD3d 1127, 1130;  see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[f][i][B];  1046[b][i] ).  “A finding of neglect is proper where a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the child's physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired or was in danger of becoming impaired by the parent's commission of an act, or acts, of domestic violence in the child's presence” (Matter of Logan P. [Kendell P.], 228 AD3d 867, 868 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).  Even a single act of domestic violence, either in the presence of a child or within the hearing of a child, may be sufficient for a neglect finding (see Matter of Abdul R. [Abdul G.], 225 AD3d 881, 882).

Here, the record supports the Family Court's determination that the father neglected the children.  Contrary to the father's contention, a preponderance of the evidence supported a finding that the children's physical, mental, or emotional conditions were impaired or in imminent danger of impairment by the father's commission of acts of domestic violence against the mother in the presence of the children (see Matter of Cruz W. [Jacki W.], 218 AD3d 782, 783).

Although the father denied any physical violence against the mother, the Family Court credited the mother's testimony and found the father's testimony to be, at least in part, self-serving and incredible.  The court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to considerable deference unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776, 777;  Matter of Sydelle P. [Alvin P.], 210 AD3d 1098, 1100).  Here, there is no basis to disturb the court's credibility determinations (see Matter of Abdul R. [Abdul G.], 225 AD3d at 882;  Matter of Tatianna C. [James C.], 195 AD3d 1014, 1015).

DUFFY, J.P., TAYLOR, VENTURA and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court