IN RE: ANGEL F. (Anonymous).

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

IN RE: ANGEL F. (Anonymous). Westchester County Department of Social Services, respondent; Berta B. (Anonymous), appellant.  (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Estevan F. (Anonymous). Westchester County Department of Social Services, respondent; Berta B. (Anonymous), appellant.  (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Ciara G. (Anonymous). Westchester County Department of Social Services, respondent; Berta B. (Anonymous), appellant.  (Proceeding No. 3) In the Matter of Marvin G. (Anonymous). Westchester County Department of Social Services, respondent; Berta B. (Anonymous), appellant.  (Proceeding No. 4) In the Matter of Jaime B. (Anonymous). Westchester County Department of Social Services, respondent; Berta B. (Anonymous), appellant.  (Proceeding No. 5) In the Matter of Andrew M. (Anonymous). Westchester County Department of Social Services, respondent; Berta B. (Anonymous), appellant.  (Proceeding No. 6).

Decided: March 31, 2009

STEVEN W. FISHER, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and ARIEL E. BELEN, JJ. Althea F. Richardson, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant. Charlene M. Indelicato, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Stacey Dolgin-Kmetz and Justin R. Adin of counsel), for respondent. Theresa M. Daniele, White Plains, N.Y., attorney for the children.

In six related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Westchester County (Edwards, J.), dated December 4, 2007, as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, and upon a decision of the same court dated October 9, 2007, found that she abused and neglected the child Angel F. and derivatively neglected the children Estevan F., Ciara G., Marvin G., Jaime B., and Andrew M.

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

 Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court correctly found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she abused and neglected her child Angel F. (hereinafter Angel) (see Family Ct. Act § 1012[f][i][A];  1046[b] [i] ).   The petitioner established that Angel's condition was such as should not ordinarily occur but for the actions or omissions of a parent or other personal legally responsible for his care and thus constitutes neglect (see Family Ct. Act § 1046[a][ii];  Matter of Zakrya M., 18 A.D.3d 754, 755, 795 N.Y.S.2d 683;  Matter of Aniyah F., 13 A.D.3d 529, 530, 788 N.Y.S.2d 119) and further established that the mother's failure to seek medical care created the type of injury or risk thereof required for a finding of abuse (see Family Ct. Act § 1012[e];  Matter of Tevon C., 280 A.D.2d 473, 720 N.Y.S.2d 178, Matter of Quincy Y., 276 A.D.2d 419, 714 N.Y.S.2d 293).

 The mother's treatment of Angel demonstrated such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm to all of the children in her care, making such children neglected as a matter of law (see Matter of Amber C., 38 A.D.3d 538, 831 N.Y.S.2d 478;  Matter of Justin P., 50 A.D.3d 802, 856 N.Y.S.2d 177;  Matter of Andrew B., 49 A.D.3d 638, 854 N.Y.S.2d 157;  Matter of Brian I., 51 A.D.3d 792, 858 N.Y.S.2d 286) and supporting the court's finding of derivative neglect of the siblings.   Family Court Act § 1046(a)(i) allows evidence of abuse or neglect of one sibling to be considered in determining whether other children in the household were abused or neglected (see Matter of Ramsay M., 17 A.D.3d 678, 794 N.Y.S.2d 105).   Under the circumstances of this case, the finding of derivative neglect with respect to Angel's siblings Estevan F., Ciara G., Marvin G., Jaime B., and Andrew M. was supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence (see Matter of Baby Boy W, 283 A.D.2d 584, 724 N.Y.S.2d 494).  “[A] court cannot and should not ‘await broken bone or shattered psyche before extending its protective cloak around [a] child pursuant to ․ article 10 of the Family Court Act’ ” (Matter of Cruz, 121 A.D.2d 901, 903, 503 N.Y.S.2d 798;  quoting Matter of Anthony, 81 Misc.2d 342, 345, 366 N.Y.S.2d 333).

The mother's remaining contentions are without merit or do not warrant reversal.