IN RE: SINCERE S. (Anonymous). (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Robert D. Hettleman, J.), dated January 15, 2025.  The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, denied that branch of the mother's motion which was to vacate so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the same court dated January 9, 2019, as, upon her consent to the entry of an order of fact-finding without admission pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051(a), found that she neglected the subject child.

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

In July 2018, the Administration for Children's Services (hereinafter ACS) filed a petition alleging that the mother neglected the subject child based on inadequate supervision.  In an order of fact-finding and disposition dated January 9, 2019, issued upon the mother's consent without admission pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051(a), the Family Court found that she neglected the child.  The court released the child to the mother under ACS supervision for 12 months upon certain conditions, including compliance with recommended services.  In August 2019, the mother was arrested for theft and the child was released to the father under ACS supervision.

In April 2024, the mother moved, inter alia, pursuant to Family Court Act § 1061 to vacate so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as, upon her consent to the entry of an order of fact-finding without admission pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051(a), found that she neglected the child.  The Family Court, among other things, after a hearing, denied that branch of the motion.  The mother appeals.

“Pursuant to Family Court Act § 1061, the Family Court may set aside, modify, or vacate any order issued in the course of a child protective proceeding for good cause shown” (Matter of Sanai T. [Michael A.], 232 AD3d 619, 620 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Jveya J. [Ebony W.], 194 AD3d 937, 938;  Matter of Arielle A.D. [Keith D.], 192 AD3d 1019, 1020).  The statute “expresses the strong Legislative policy in favor of continuing Family Court jurisdiction over the child and family so that the court can do what is necessary in the furtherance of the child's welfare” (Matter of Sophia W. [Tiffany P.], 176 AD3d 723, 724 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Aaliyah B. [Althea R.], 170 AD3d 712, 712).  “As with an initial order, the modified order must reflect a resolution consistent with the best interests of the child[ ] after consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, and must be supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Angel L. [Angel L.], 238 AD3d 759, 760 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Angel L. IV [Angel L. III], 235 AD3d 757, 758;  Matter of Alisah H. [Syed H.], 168 AD3d 842, 844).

Contrary to the mother's contentions, the record supports the Family Court's determination that the mother failed to establish good cause to vacate the finding of neglect against her (see Matter of Alisah H. [Syed H.], 168 AD3d at 844;  cf.  Matter of Nila S. [Priscilla S.], 202 AD3d 695, 697) and to demonstrate that vacating the finding of neglect would serve the best interests of the child (see Matter of Zyirr J. [Michael A.], 191 AD3d 784, 784–785;  Matter of Shreesta R. [Biblop R.], 173 AD3d 1039, 1040;  Matter of Aaliyah B. [Althea R.], 170 AD3d at 713).

Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied that branch of the mother's motion which was to vacate so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as, upon her consent to the entry of an order of fact-finding without admission pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051(a), found that she neglected the child.

GENOVESI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WAN and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.