IN RE: Gavin B. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services (2026)

Submitted—June 9, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

G/

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Matthew G. Hughes, J.), dated September 16, 2024, and (2) an order of fact-finding and disposition of the same court dated January 21, 2025.  The order of fact-finding, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the mother neglected the subject child.  The order of fact-finding and disposition, insofar as appealed from, upon the order of fact-finding, found that the mother neglected the subject child.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as it was superseded by the order of fact-finding and disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition;  and it is further,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 this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging that the mother neglected the subject child in that the mother suffered from an untreated mental illness that impaired her ability to care for the child and that the mother failed to obtain services to address the child's special needs.  In an order of fact-finding dated September 16, 2024, after a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the mother neglected the child.  In an order of fact-finding and disposition dated January 21, 2025, the court, upon the order of fact-finding, inter alia, found that the mother neglected the child.  The mother appeals.

“At a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject child has been abused or neglected” (Matter of Aiyana F. [Danielle B.], 249 AD3d 1045, 1046 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Family Ct Act § 1046[b][i];  Matter of Destiny R. [Rene G.], 212 AD3d 629, 630).  “Even though evidence of a parent's mental illness, alone, is insufficient to support a finding of neglect of a child, such evidence may be part of a neglect determination when the proof further demonstrates that the parent's condition creates an imminent risk of physical, mental, or emotional harm to the child” (Matter of Giesele T. [Zahra A.], 243 AD3d 574, 575 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Kamani K.L. [Jasmine D.Q.], 239 AD3d 980, 980).  “Proof of a parent's ongoing mental illness and failure to follow through with aftercare medication is a sufficient basis for a finding of neglect where such failure results in a parent's inability to care for their child in the foreseeable future” (Matter of Caia N. [Terri N.], 231 AD3d 1033, 1034;  see Matter of Sonja R. [Victor R.], 216 AD3d 1096, 1098).

Here, the petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother neglected the child.  The petitioner's evidence demonstrated that the mother's lack of insight into her ongoing mental illness and her refusal to take medication or undergo mental health treatment placed the child at imminent risk of harm (see Matter of Lamech B.-I. v. Pauline R., 240 AD3d 588, 589;  Matter of Wynter V. [Felitta V.], 230 AD3d 505, 506;  Matter of Precise M. [Tawana M.], 215 AD3d 680, 681).  Moreover, a preponderance of evidence demonstrated that the mother failed to obtain ongoing services to address the child's special needs (see generally Matter of Aiyana F. [Danielle B.], 249 AD3d 1045;  Matter of Deanna R.G. [Rajkumare B.], 83 AD3d 1064).

Accordingly, the Family Court properly found that the mother neglected the child.

DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court