| Matter of Ahmad H. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 10216 [46 AD3d 1357] |
| December 21, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Ahmad H. and Another, Infants. Onondaga CountyDepartment of Social Services, Appellant; Vennetta J., Respondent, and Earl H.,Respondent. |
—[*1] Lisa M. Fahey, East Syracuse, for respondent-respondent. Mark A. Schaeber, Law Guardian, Liverpool, for Ahmad H. and Amina H.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Bryan R. Hedges, J.), enteredNovember 28, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, insofaras appealed from, dismissed the amended petition against respondent Earl H.
It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from be and the same hereby isunanimously reversed on the law without costs, the amended petition is granted in its entirety,respondent Earl H. is adjudicated to have derivatively neglected Ahmad H. and Amina H. and thematter is remitted to Family Court, Onondaga County, for a dispositional hearing.
Memorandum: Family Court erred in dismissing the amended petition against respondentfather on the ground that his 1989 adjudication of neglect with respect to children in his legalcare whom he had sexually abused was too remote in time to form the basis of an adjudication ofderivative neglect with respect to his two children who are the subject of this proceeding. Wherea person's conduct toward one child "demonstrates a fundamental defect in [the person]'sunderstanding of the duties of parenthood," an adjudication of derivative neglect with respect toother children is warranted (Matter of Brandiwell K., 247 AD2d 931 [1998]). Although17 years had passed between the prior adjudication and the births of the subject children, weconclude that an adjudication of derivative neglect is warranted under the circumstances becausethere is no reason to believe that the father's proclivity for sexually abusing children has changed,nor is there any indication the father has addressed the issues that led to the prior adjudication ofneglect and his sexual abuse of children (see Matter of Evelyn B., 30 AD3d 913, 915-916 [2006], lvdenied 7 NY3d 713 [2006]). The father's attorney acknowledged that the father is aconvicted sex offender who has not even started a treatment program for sex offenders despitehaving been advised repeatedly that he needed to complete one. The father's attorney alsoacknowledged that the father is on probation and that, as a condition of his probation, he isprohibited from having any contact with children under the age of 18, and the father's attorneyfurther acknowledged that [*2]an order of protection was enteredagainst the father with respect to another child in the care of respondent mother (see id.;Matter of Daequan FF., 243 AD2d 922, 923 [1997]; Matter of Jeremy H., 193AD2d 799, 800 [1993]). We thus conclude on the record before us that an adjudication ofderivative neglect is appropriate because there is "a fundamental defect in [the father]'sunderstanding of the duties of parenthood" (Brandiwell K., 247 AD2d 931 [1998]).Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Smith, Fahey and Pine, JJ.