| Matter of Isaac J. (Joyce J.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05997 [75 AD3d 506] |
| July 6, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Isaac J., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Administration for Children's Service, Respondent; Joyce J.,Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals,as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the FamilyCourt, Kings County (Lim, J.), dated July 29, 2009, as, after a hearing, found that she hadneglected the subject child and granted the motion of the Administration for Children's Servicesto direct that the subject child be immunized in accordance with Public Health Law §2164.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from,without costs or disbursements.
At a fact-finding hearing in an abuse and/or neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Actarticle 10, a petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that thesubject child has been abused and/or neglected (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i];Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1, 3 [1985]; Matter of Daniel R. [Lucille R.], 70 AD3d 839, 841 [2010]).Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's determination that she neglected thesubject child was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The evidence adduced at thehearing established that the mother maintained the child's home in a deplorable and unsanitarycondition (see Matter of Lauren R.,18 AD3d 761 [2005]; Matter ofTodd D., 9 AD3d 462, 463 [2004]; Matter of Jessica DiB., 6 AD3d 533, 534 [2004]; Matter ofCommissioner of Social Servs. v Anne F., 225 AD2d 620 [1996]). The evidence alsoestablished that the mother failed to provide the child with adequate medical care (see Matterof Hofbauer, 47 NY2d 648, 654-655 [1979]; Matter of Shawndel M., 33 AD3d 1006 [2006]; Matter ofFaridah W., 180 AD2d 451, 452 [1992]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly found thatthere was an imminent danger of impairment of the child's physical, mental, or emotionalcondition as a result of the mother's conduct (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]).
Moreover, the Family Court properly granted the motion of the Administration for [*2]Children's Services to direct that the child be immunized inaccordance with Public Health Law § 2164. The mother opposed the motion on the groundthat she was entitled to the religious exemption from the Public Health Law's immunizationrequirements provided by Public Health Law § 2164 (9). However, she failed to prove bya preponderance of the evidence that her opposition to immunization "stems from genuinely-heldreligious beliefs" (Bowden v Iona Grammar School, 284 AD2d 357, 359 [2001]; see Matter of Nassau County Dept. ofSocial Servs. v R.B., 23 Misc 3d 270, 274-275 [2008]; see also Mason v GeneralBrown Cent. School Dist., 851 F2d 47, 50 [1988]). Prudenti, P.J., Rivera, Santucci andMiller, JJ., concur.