| Matter of Jaden J. (Ernest C.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03331 [106 AD3d 822] |
| May 8, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Jaden J. Administration for Children'sServices,Respondent; Ernest C., Sr., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In theMatter of Ernest A.C., Jr. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Ernest C.,Sr., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Jaevon C.Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Ernest C., Sr., Appellant, et al.,Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnensheinand Diana Lawless of counsel), for petitioner-respondent. Melissa E. Bonaldes, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the child Jaden J. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Marcia Egger of counsel),attorney for the children Ernest A.C., Jr., and Jaevon C.
In three related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10,the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court,Kings County (Turbow, J.), dated February 2, 2012, which, after a hearing, found thatthe father neglected the children Ernest A.C., Jr., and Jaevon C., and derivativelyneglected the child Jaden J., directed that the children be placed in the custody of theCommissioner of Social Services of the City of New York until April 20, 2012, anddirected that, during the period of such placement, the father was to (1) participate inalcohol and substance abuse programs, (2) obtain suitable housing and a source ofincome, and (3) participate in domestic violence counseling and a batterer's program.[*2]
Ordered that the appeal from the dispositionalportion of the order of fact-finding and disposition is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed,without costs or disbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as placed thesubject children with the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York untilthe permanency hearing which was held on April 20, 2012, and directed that, during theperiod of such placement, the father was to (1) participate in alcohol and substance abuseprograms, (2) obtain suitable housing and a source of income, and (3) participate indomestic violence counseling and a batterer's program, must be dismissed as academic,as the period of placement has already expired (see Matter of Amiya S. [Twana J.F.], 100 AD3d 763[2012]; Matter of Najad D.[Kiswana M.], 99 AD3d 707 [2012]; Matter of Ifeiye O., 53 AD3d 501, 501-502 [2008]), andthere is no dispute with respect to whether the father complied with these conditions.
The evidence supports the Family Court's determination that the father neglected thechildren Ernest A.C., Jr., and Jaevon C. by engaging in acts of domestic violence againstthe mother of those children in their presence that impaired, or created an imminentdanger of impairing, their physical, emotional, or mental conditions (see FamilyCt Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B];see generally Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357 [2004]). The Family Court'sdetermination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal,as it had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, and will not bedisturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Anthony S. [Dawn N.], 98 AD3d 519, 520[2012]; Matter of Peter C., Jr.[Peter C.], 88 AD3d 702, 703 [2011]; Matter of Jonathan B. [Linda S.], 84 AD3d 1078,1079-1080 [2011]). Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court properlycredited the mother's testimony, which established a pattern of domestic violence andintimidation perpetrated by the father (see Matter of Mohammad K.B. [Mohammed K-M.], 99 AD3d796 [2012]).
The Family Court also properly concluded that a preponderance of the evidencedemonstrated that the neglect of Ernest A.C., Jr., and Jaevon C. was " 'so proximate intime to the derivative proceeding that it can reasonably be concluded that the conditionstill exist[ed]' " (Matter of Baby Boy W., 283 AD2d 584, 585 [2001], quotingMatter of Cruz, 121 AD2d 901, 902-903 [1986]; see Family Ct Act§ 1046 [a] [i]; Matter ofClarissa S.P. [Jaris S.], 91 AD3d 785, 786 [2012]), and that the neglect ofErnest A.C., Jr., and Jaevon C. evinced a "fundamental defect in [the father's]understanding of the duties of parenthood" (Matter of Dutchess County Dept. ofSocial Servs. v Douglas E., 191 AD2d 694, 694 [1993]; see Matter of ClarissaS.P. [Jaris S.], 91 AD3d at 786). Since the father presented no evidence that thecircumstances giving rise to the neglect of Ernest A.C., Jr., and Jaevon C. no longerexisted, the Family Court properly made a finding of derivative neglect with respect toJaden J. (see Matter of Clarissa S.P. [Jaris S.], 91 AD3d at 786; Matter of Amber C., 38 AD3d538, 540 [2007]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the father's remaining contention.Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.