IN RE: MANSANI D. (Anonymous). (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Monica D. Shulman, J.), dated March 7, 2025.  The order of fact-finding and disposition, insofar as appealed from, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the mother neglected the child Mansani D. and derivatively neglected the child Mansahko D. and released the children to the custody of the father under the petitioner's supervision.

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

On January 15, 2023, the child Mansani D., who was 23 months old, was hospitalized in a lethargic state.  He tested positive for marijuana and alcohol at the hospital.  The Administration for Children's Services (hereinafter ACS) commenced these related proceedings alleging, among other things, that the mother neglected Mansani D. and derivatively neglected the child Mansahko D. In an order of fact-finding and disposition dated March 7, 2025, made after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, the Family Court, inter alia, found that the mother neglected Mansani D. and derivatively neglected Mansahko D., and released the children to the custody of the father under the supervision of ACS. 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 (see id. § 1046[b][i];  Matter of Amaris A.A. [Jasmine R.], 210 AD3d 1077, 1078).  “Under Family Court Act § 1046(a)(ii), ‘a prima facie case of child abuse or neglect may be established by evidence ․ (1)[of] an injury to a child that would not ordinarily occur absent an act or omission of the respondents, and (2) that the respondents were the caretakers of the child at the time the injury occurred’ ” (Matter of Erica H.-J. [Tarel H.], 216 AD3d 951, 953, quoting Matter of Zoey D. [Simona D.], 148 AD3d 802, 803;  see Matter of Amaris A.A. [Jasmine R.], 210 AD3d at 1079).  Thus, once the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that child neglect has occurred, Family Court Act § 1046(a)(ii) “authorizes a method of proof which is closely analogous to the negligence rule of res ipsa loquitur” (Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d 238, 244;  see Matter of Erica H.-J. [Tarel H.], 216 AD3d at 953).  “The statute ‘permits findings of [neglect] against more than one caretaker where multiple individuals had access to the child in the period in which the injury occurred,’ and, in such cases, ‘the petitioner is not required to establish which caretaker actually inflicted the injury or whether they did so together’ ” (Matter of Erica H.-J. [Tarel H.], 216 AD3d at 953, quoting Matter of Unity T. [Dennis T.], 166 AD3d 629, 631–632;  see Matter of Zoey D. [Simona D.], 148 AD3d at 803).  “Once the petitioner establishes a prima facie case, ‘the burden of going forward shifts to respondents to rebut the evidence of parental culpability’ ” (Matter of Erica H.-J. [Tarel H.], 216 AD3d at 953, quoting Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d at 244).

Here, ACS established, prima facie, that the mother neglected Mansani D., and the mother failed to rebut the presumption of parental responsibility by providing a reasonable explanation for Mansani D.'s ingestion of alcohol and marijuana (see Matter of Sincere S. [Jahquan S.], 176 AD3d 1072, 1074–1075;  Matter of Nabel C. [Amanda R.], 134 AD3d 504, 505).  The fact that Mansani D. was in the care of his maternal grandmother during the week preceding his hospitalization does not compel a contrary result, as the uncontradicted evidence established that the mother saw Mansani D. on multiple occasions while he was staying with his maternal grandmother, including the night before his hospitalization, when the mother observed him to be drowsy (see Matter of L.V. [L.J.], 228 AD3d 562, 563;  Matter of Travis S. [Moezel J.—Taijon S.], 203 AD3d 478, 479).  Family Court Act § 1046 “permits findings of [neglect] against more than one caretaker where multiple individuals had access to the child in the period in which the injury occurred” (Matter of Zoey D. [Simona D.], 148 AD3d at 803).  In addition, ACS demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct of the mother with respect to Mansani D. “demonstrate[d] such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in ․ her care,” such that an adjudication of derivative neglect with respect to Mansahko D. was warranted (Matter of Kiyoshi J.-E. [Jusinta J.-E.], 248 AD3d 1247, 1249–1250 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Zephaniah Z. [Charlene F.], 220 AD3d 800, 801–802;  Matter of Sincere S. [Jahquan S.], 176 AD3d at 1075).

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in releasing the children to the custody of the father under the supervision of ACS. “At the dispositional stage of a child protective proceeding, the court must render a determination based on the best interests of the child” (Matter of Moses M. [Melissa M.], 237 AD3d 825, 826;  see Family Ct Act § 1052;  Matter of Kayorie S. [Brandy S.], 214 AD3d 886, 887).  “The factors to be considered in making the determination include the parent or caretaker's capacity to properly supervise the child, based on current information and the potential threat of future abuse and neglect” (Matter of Jaheem M. [Cymon M.], 174 AD3d 610, 611 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Moses M. [Melissa M.], 237 AD3d at 826;  Matter of Kayorie S. [Brandy S.], 214 AD3d at 887).  Here, the record reflects that the children had been in the father's care for almost two years and that, during that time, he had provided for the children's needs, complied with ACS supervision, and was enrolled in recommended services.  In contrast, the record reflects that the mother failed to control the children during weekly supervised visits and enrolled herself in services that were not approved by ACS, and raises concerns about the mother's mental health, insofar as she continued to believe, inter alia, that her family and the father conspired to harm the children.

LASALLE, P.J., FORD, WAN and QUIRK, JJ., concur.