IN RE: SUNNY R.L. (Anonymous). (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from (1) a decision of the Family Court, Richmond County (Karen B. Wolff, J.), dated March 12, 2025, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated March 13, 2025.  The order of disposition, insofar as appealed from, upon an order of fact-finding of the same court dated August 14, 2024, made after a fact-finding hearing, finding that the mother neglected the subject children, and, after a dispositional hearing, directed that the mother have only supervised parental access with the subject children.

ORDERED that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Matter of Timothy K. Jr. [Timothy K.], 225 A.D.3d 700, 701, 207 N.Y.S.3d 536);  and it is further,

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

The Administration for Children's Services (hereinafter ACS) commenced these child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10.  In an order of fact-finding dated August 14, 2024, the Family Court, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the mother neglected the subject children, inter alia, as a consequence of her failure to comply with her mental health treatment regimen.  In an order of disposition dated March 13, 2025, the court, after a dispositional hearing, among other things, directed that the mother have only supervised parental access with the children.  The mother 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 children are neglected (see Matter of David K.W. [Debora W.], 241 A.D.3d 696, 697, 239 N.Y.S.3d 282;  Matter of Zaria P. [Sade G.], 240 A.D.3d 699, 700, 235 N.Y.S.3d 458).  “While parental neglect may be based on mental illness, proof of a parent's mental illness alone will not support a finding of neglect” (Matter of Nialani T. [Elizabeth B.], 164 A.D.3d 1245, 1246, 83 N.Y.S.3d 206 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Lamech B.-I. v. Pauline R., 240 A.D.3d 588, 589, 239 N.Y.S.3d 199).  However, “[p]roof of a parent's ongoing mental illness and the 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 his or her child in the foreseeable future” (Matter of Bibi H. v Administration for Children's Servs.-Queens, 210 A.D.3d 771, 773, 178 N.Y.S.3d 148 [alteration and internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Zaria P. [Sade G.], 240 A.D.3d at 701, 235 N.Y.S.3d 458).

Here, ACS established by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother neglected the children.  The evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing demonstrated that the mother lacked the insight into her ongoing mental illness and her failure to consistently engage in therapy and take her medication placed the children at imminent risk of harm (see Matter of Anthony A.R. [Taicha P.], 188 A.D.3d 697, 698–699, 131 N.Y.S.3d 604;  Matter of Joseph Bruce I. [Joseph A.I.], 185 A.D.3d 930, 932, 125 N.Y.S.3d 872).

Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court properly admitted into evidence at the fact-finding hearing certain police body camera footage, as it did not constitute official records within the meaning of CPL 160.50 and, thus, was not subject to sealing under that statute (see Matter of Krystal N. [Juan R.], 193 A.D.3d 602, 602–603, 142 N.Y.S.3d 808).

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the best interests of the children determine whether parental access should be permitted to a parent who has committed abuse or neglect (see Matter of Kimora L.H. [Shanel W.], 246 A.D.3d 917, 918, 250 N.Y.S.3d 632;  Matter of Tito T. [Carlos T.], 144 A.D.3d 813, 814, 40 N.Y.S.3d 547).  The factors to be considered in making the determination include the parent's capacity to properly supervise the children, based on current information and the potential threat of future abuse and neglect (see Matter of Bryant D. [Brianna G.], 249 A.D.3d 727, 729, 256 N.Y.S.3d 360;  Matter of Eliora B. [Kennedy B.], 146 A.D.3d 772, 774, 45 N.Y.S.3d 144).  The determination of whether parental access should be supervised is a matter left to the Family Court's sound discretion, and its findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Vicente v. Diaz, 241 A.D.3d 1571, 1572, 243 N.Y.S.3d 124;  Matter of Douglas v. Polanco, 240 A.D.3d 693, 694, 235 N.Y.S.3d 196).  Here, the evidence supported the conclusion that the mother should be permitted only supervised parental access with the children (see Matter of Bobby J.C. [Faith C.], 124 A.D.3d 648, 649, 1 N.Y.S.3d 311;  Matter of Smith v. Roberts, 67 A.D.3d 688, 689, 886 N.Y.S.2d 905).

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., WARHIT, HOM and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.