| Matter of Brian I. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04518 [51 AD3d 792] |
| May 13, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Brian I. Orange County Department of SocialServices, Respondent; Brian T., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of ElizabethDunhyel F. Orange County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Brian T., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Olivia F. Orange County Department of Social Services,Respondent; Brian T., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) |
—[*1] David Darwin, County Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Peter R. Schwarz of counsel), forrespondent. Jeanmarie A. Marquardt, Shrub Oak, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In three related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, thefather appeals from (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Orange County (Klein, J.), datedJuly 18, 2006, which, after a hearing, found, in effect, that the subject children were derivativelyneglected, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated January 8, 2007, which, uponthe fact-finding order, determined, inter alia, that the children should remain in the custody of theOrange County Department of Social Services.[*2]
Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order isdismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the fact-finding order was superseded by the orderof disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it isfurther,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner had the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the fatherneglected the subject children (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f], § 1046 [b] [i];Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d357, 368 [2004]). The petitioner satisfied that burden with evidence that, inter alia, the fatherwas convicted of multiple sexual abuse crimes against child victims other than the subjectchildren. A derivative finding of neglect should be made where the evidence of abuse of anotherchild or children demonstrates such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create asubstantial risk of harm for any child in the respondent's care (see Matter of Ian H., 42 AD3d 701 [2007]; Matter of Amber C., 38 AD3d538, 540 [2007]; Matter of Nicole G., 274 AD2d 478, 479 [2000]; Matter ofDutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Noreen K.], 242 AD2d 533, 534 [1997]; Matterof Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. v Douglas E., 191 AD2d 694, 694 [1993]).
The father's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or withoutmerit. Fisher, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Belen, JJ., concur.