IN RE: HANA–ALUNA O. C.-M. (Anonymous). (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Emily Ruben, J.), dated April 14, 2025.  The order of disposition, insofar as appealed from, upon an order of fact-finding of the same court dated November 13, 2024, made after a fact-finding hearing, finding that the mother neglected the subject child, and after a dispositional hearing, directed the mother to comply with a stay away order of protection, complete a parenting class, and complete a full mental health evaluation.

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

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging, inter alia, that the mother neglected the subject child by failing to provide the child with adequate shelter and food.  After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the mother neglected the child.  Subsequently, after a dispositional hearing, the court directed the mother, among other things, to comply with a stay away order of protection, complete a parenting class, and complete a full mental health evaluation.  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 that the subject child has been abused or neglected by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046[b][i];  Matter of Kamaya S. [Zephaniah S.], 218 AD3d 590, 592).  To establish neglect of a child, the petitioner must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the child's physical, mental, or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired, and the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship (see Matter of Chloe P.-M. [Martinique P.], 220 AD3d 783, 784).  Parental behavior must be evaluated objectively by considering whether a reasonable and prudent parent would have so acted, or failed to act, under the circumstances (see Matter of Abigail M.A. [James A.], 222 AD3d 973, 975).  Great deference is given to the Family Court's credibility determinations, as it is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses, having had the opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe their demeanor (see Matter of Ashlyn M. [Robert J.], 228 AD3d 939, 941).

To satisfy its burden, the petitioner may rely upon prior out-of-court statements of the subject child, provided that they are sufficiently corroborated (see Family Ct Act § 1046[a][vi];  Matter of Jada W. [Fanatay W.], 219 AD3d 732, 738;  Matter of Ashley G. [Eggar T.], 163 AD3d 963, 964).  The rule requiring corroboration is flexible, and any other evidence tending to support the reliability of the child's statements may be sufficient corroboration (see Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 119).  The Family Court has considerable discretion to decide whether the child's out-of-court statements describing incidents of abuse or neglect have been reliably corroborated and whether the record as a whole supports a finding of abuse or neglect (see Matter of Logan P. [Kendell P.], 228 AD3d 867, 869;  Matter of Kashai E. [Kashif R.E.], 218 AD3d 574, 575–576).

A parent may be found to have neglected a child by failing to supply the child with adequate shelter based on the unsanitary, deplorable, or otherwise unsafe conditions of the home (see Matter of Majesty M. [Brandy P.], 166 AD3d 775, 776), since such conditions necessarily imply an imminent danger of impairment to the child's health (see Matter of Busch v. Margaret B., 109 A.D.2d 837, 837–838).

Contrary to the mother's contention, a preponderance of the evidence supported a finding that the child's physical, mental, or emotional conditions were impaired or in imminent danger of impairment by, inter alia, the failure of the mother to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship (see Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i][B];  Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368).  Contrary to the mother's contention, the child's out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of a case worker, a police officer, the mother, and the records that were admitted into evidence.  Although the mere repetition of an accusation does not, by itself, provide sufficient corroboration, some degree of corroboration can be found in the consistency of the out-of-court repetitions (see Matter of Oscar P. [Romulo M.], 231 AD3d 731, 732).

The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.

BARROS, J.P., WOOTEN, VENTURA and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.