Matter of Darrell W. (Tenika C.)
2013 NY Slip Op 07051 [110 AD3d 1088]
October 30, 2013
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, November 27, 2013


In the Matter of Darrell W. Westchester County Departmentof Social Services, Respondent; Tenika C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matterof Drayvon C. Westchester County Department of Social Services, Respondent; TenikaC., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Anaiyah C. Westchester CountyDepartment of Social Services, Respondent; Tenika C., Appellant. (Proceeding No.3.)

[*1]Maria Joy Frank, Yorktown Heights, N.Y. for appellant.

Robert F. Meehan, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (James Castro Blanco andEileen Campbell-O'Brien of counsel), for respondent.

Cynthia Holfester-Neugebauer, Sea Cliff, N.Y., attorney for the child Darrell W.

Helene Bernstein, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the child Drayvon C.

Karen M. Jansen, White Plains, N.Y., attorney for the child Anaiyah C.

In related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, themother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding anddisposition of the Family Court, Westchester County (Davidson, J.), dated November 28,2011, as, after a hearing, found that she had neglected the subject children and continuedthe children's placement in foster care.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealedfrom, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's finding of neglect issupported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §§1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [a] [iii]; [b] [i]). While only one positive drug test result wasreferenced in the testimony at the fact-finding hearing, other evidence was adduced ofthe mother's repeated misuse of drugs without regular [*2]participation in a rehabilitative program. This evidenceestablished a prima facie case of neglect and, therefore, neither actual impairment of thechildren's physical, mental, or emotional conditions, nor specific risk of impairment,needed to be established (seeMatter of Audrey K. [Erik K.], 108 AD3d 717 [2013]; Matter of Sadiq H. [Karl H.],81 AD3d 647 [2011]; Matter of Paolo W., 56 AD3d 966 [2008]).

The mother's claim that she was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel iswithout merit. Viewed in totality, the record shows that she received meaningfulrepresentation (see Matter ofDylan Mc. [Michelle M. Mc.], 105 AD3d 1049 [2013]; Matter of Christiana C. [CarletonC.], 86 AD3d 606 [2011]).

The mother's remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohenand Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.