IN RE: Madeline A. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Elizabeth M. (Anonymous), appellant.
Submitted—September 6, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Wolff, J.), dated August 18, 2010, which, after a hearing, denied her application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028(a) for the return of the subject child to her custody.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court properly denied her application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028(a) to return the subject child to her custody. The evidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to establish that the return of the child, whose older siblings remain in foster care as a consequence of a prior adjudication of neglect against the mother, would present an imminent risk to the child's emotional, mental, and physical health (see Family Ct Act § 1028[a]; Matter of Nathanal C. [Dimas C.], 78 AD3d 939; Matter of Elijah O. [Marilyn O.], 77 AD3d 836, 837; Matter of Gabriel James M., 59 AD3d 448; Matter of Iouke H., 50 AD3d 904, 905; Matter of Kimberly H., 242 A.D.2d 35, 39–40). Moreover, the imminent risk of harm to the child's emotional, mental, and physical health would not be alleviated by the issuance of a protective order against the child's father (see Matter of Gabriel James M., 59 AD3d 448).
SKELOS, J.P., ENG, AUSTIN and MILLER, JJ., concur.
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court