| Matter of Madeline A. (Elizabeth M.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06836 [87 AD3d 1132] |
| September 27, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Madeline A. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Elizabeth M., Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow andElizabeth S. Natrella of counsel), for respondent. Angela Conti, Staten Island, N.Y., Attorney for the Child.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealsfrom an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Wolff, J.), dated August 18, 2010, which,after a hearing, denied her application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 (a) for thereturn of the subject child to her custody.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court properly denied her applicationpursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 (a) to return the subject child to her custody. Theevidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to establish that the return of the child, whoseolder siblings remain in foster care as a consequence of a prior adjudication of neglect against themother, would present an imminent risk to the child's emotional, mental, and physical health(see Family Ct Act § 1028 [a]; Matter of Nathanal C. [Dimas C.], 78 AD3d 939 [2010]; Matter of Elijah O. [Marilyn O.], 77AD3d 836, 837 [2010]; Matter ofGabriel James M., 59 AD3d 448 [2009]; Matter of Iouke H., 50 AD3d 904, 905 [2008]; Matter ofKimberly H., 242 AD2d 35, 39-40 [1998]). Moreover, the imminent risk of harm to thechild's emotional, mental, and physical health would not be alleviated by the issuance of aprotective order against the child's father (see Matter of Gabriel James M., 59 AD3d 448 [2009]). Skelos,J.P., Eng, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.