| Matter of Carlena B. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02992 [61 AD3d 752] |
| April 14, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Carlena B., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Nassau County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Daniel Foster B., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Damien M., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. NassauCounty Department of Social Services, Respondent; Daniel Foster B., Appellant. (ProceedingNo. 2.) |
—[*1] Lorna B. Goodman, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Rosanne M. Harvey of counsel), forrespondent. Nathaniel H. Weisel, Great Neck, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, DanielFoster B. appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, NassauCounty (Marks, J.), dated March 5, 2008, which, after a hearing, inter alia, found that heneglected Carlena B. and, in effect, that he derivatively neglected Damien M., and, among otherthings, prohibited him from any contact with Carlena B. until he completed substance abusetreatment.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court's findings that the father neglected his infant daughter, Carlena B., weresupported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i][B]; § 1046 [b] [i]; [*2]Matter of Issiah C., 24 AD3d 438 [2005]). The evidenceestablished, inter alia, that the father knew or should have known of the mother's drug use and"failed to exercise a minimum degree of care in ensuring that the mother did not abuse drugsduring the pregnancy" (Matter of K. Children, 253 AD2d 764, 765 [1998]). The evidencefurther established that the father himself was a substance abuser (see Matter of Issiah C., 24 AD3d438 [2005]), and that he failed to avail himself of drug rehabilitation therapy at the directionof the Nassau County Department of Social Services (see Matter of Kareem C., 253AD2d 708 [1998]).
The Family Court properly, in effect, found that the older child, Damien M., wasderivatively neglected (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]; Matter of K.Children, 253 AD2d at 765; seealso Matter of Lemar H., 23 AD3d 383 [2005]).
The order of disposition, which required the father to complete substance abuse treatmentbefore resuming contact with Carlena B., was in the best interests of Carlena B. (see Matter of Enrique T. v AnnamarieM., 15 AD3d 310 [2005]; Matter of Tanya T., 252 AD2d 677 [1998]). Mastro,J.P., Dillon, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.