| Matter of Celine O. (Johanna Q.) |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09331 [68 AD3d 1373] |
| December 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Celine O. and Another, Alleged to be NeglectedChildren. Broome County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Johanna Q., Appellant, etal., Respondent. |
—[*1] Philomena M. Stamato, Broome County Department of Social Services, Binghamton, forBroome County Department of Social Services, respondent. Bridget A. O'Connor, Law Guardian, Binghamton.
Malone Jr., J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Connerton, J.),entered November 25, 2008, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant toFamily Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate the subject children to be neglected.
Respondent Johanna Q. (hereinafter respondent) is the mother of the two subject children, ason (born in 1991) and a daughter (born in 1996), and respondent Aaron R. is the mother'sformer live-in boyfriend.[FN1]Petitioner commenced this proceeding in December 2007, seeking an order adjudicating thechildren to be neglected based upon allegations that [*2]respondents left the state without informing the children andleaving them unattended, and exposed the children to domestic violence. Following fact-findingand dispositional hearings, Family Court granted the petition and placed the children in thecustody of the son's paternal grandmother. Respondent appeals.[FN2]
"According great deference to [Family Court's] factual findings, which will only be disturbedif they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record, we find no reason to set aside FamilyCourt's determination that respondent's actions constituted a departure from the minimum degreeof care which should be exercised by a reasonable and prudent parent in order to prevent a riskof impairment to the child or imminent danger of impairment" (Matter of Karissa NN., 19 AD3d766, 766 [2005] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d357, 368 [2004]). The testimony here established that respondent's boyfriend beganphysically abusing her shortly after he moved into her home. While the altercations occurredoutside the children's immediate presence, the children could hear "major arguments" and"serious yelling," saw respondent's injuries and feared for her safety. The abuse was severeenough that, after one particular incident, respondent sought medical attention and called thepolice from the emergency room. Although respondent promised the responding police officerthat she would take the kids to a shelter, she instead returned home to her boyfriend, whereuponhe again physically assaulted her. Just a few days later, while the children were in school,respondent left with her boyfriend and drove with him out of state without notifying the childrenor arranging for their care. The son called the police after he found a note that respondent hadleft under his pillow directing him to call 911, which he understood to be related to the domesticviolence. The children were left unattended, with little food in the house, until the following daywhen petitioner intervened. That respondent attempted to minimize these incidents indicates thatshe lacked insight into the effect her actions had on the children's emotional and physicalwell-being. Accordingly, we find that the proof sufficiently supports Family Court's finding ofneglect (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Angelique L., 42 AD3d569, 572 [2007]).
Spain, J.P., Rose, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.
Footnote 1: Apparently respondents are alsothe parents of one child together who is not a subject of this proceeding.
Footnote 2: Although the son is now 18years old and the daughter has apparently been returned to respondent's custody, this appeal isnot moot because the finding of neglect could be used against respondent in the future (see Matter of Karissa NN., 19 AD3d766, 766 n [2005]).