| Matter of Matthew M. (Fatima M.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05573 [109 AD3d 472] |
| August 7, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Matthew M., an Infant. Administration forChildren's Services, Respondent; Fatima M., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In theMatter of Alexis M., an Infant. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent;Fatima M., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Briana M., an Infant.Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Fatima M., Appellant. (ProceedingNo. 3.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F.X. Hart andJulie Steiner of counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Marcia Egger of counsel),attorney for the children.
In three related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10,the mother appeals from (1) an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County(White, J.), dated July 2, 2012, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court datedJanuary 10, 2012, made after a hearing, finding that she neglected the child Briana M.and derivatively neglected the children Matthew M. and Alexis M., placed her under thesupervision of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of two months, and(2) an order of the same court dated July 23, 2012, which denied her motion, in effect, todismiss the petitions pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051 (c). The appeal from theorder of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed themother under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services for a periodof two [*2]months is dismissed as academic, withoutcosts or disbursements, as the period of supervision has expired; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs ordisbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated July 23, 2012, is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
Although parents have a right to use reasonable physical force against a child inorder to maintain discipline or to promote the child's welfare, the use of excessivecorporal punishment constitutes neglect (see Matter of Isaiah S., 63 AD3d 948 [2009]; see alsoPenal Law § 35.10; Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). The FamilyCourt's finding of neglect as to the child Briana M., based upon the mother's use ofexcessive corporal punishment, is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (seeFamily Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]). The evidencedemonstrated that the mother struck then-eight-year-old Briana with a belt numeroustimes, causing marks on her back and arms (see Matter of Candacy C. [Clairmonte C.], 96 AD3d 836[2012]; Matter of Delehia J.[Tameka J.], 93 AD3d 668, 669 [2012]).
The evidence, which established that the mother inflicted excessive corporalpunishment on Briana, was sufficient to support the Family Court's determination that thechildren Matthew M. and Alexis M. were derivatively neglected (see Matter ofDelehia J. [Tameka J.], 93 AD3d at 669).
Contrary to the contentions of the mother and the attorney for the children, theFamily Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the mother'smotion, in effect, to dismiss the petitions pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051 (c)on the ground that the aid of the court was not required. Despite the mother's successfulcompletion of parental skills training and anger management counseling, the courtproperly found that some type of supervision was appropriate, especially since thesubject incident was not isolated and the mother had not yet completed individualcounseling (see e.g. Matter ofPhillips N. [Joy N.], 104 AD3d 690, 691 [2013]; cf. Matter of Kayden H. [KareenaH.], 104 AD3d 764, 766 [2013]). Mastro, J.P., Hall, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.