| Matter of Brandon T. (Guillaume T.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01329 [114 AD3d 950] |
| February 26, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Brandon T., an Infant. Administration forChildren's Services, Respondent; Guillaume T., Appellant, et al.,Respondent. |
—[*1] Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F.X. Hart andJulie Steiner of counsel; Jenna Krueger on the brief), for petitioner-respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Susan Clement of counsel),attorney for the child.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the fatherappeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County(Turbow, J.), dated January 22, 2013, which, after a fact-finding hearing, inter alia, foundthat he derivatively neglected the subject child and provided a disposition.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
In this proceeding commenced on November 7, 2011, the petitioner alleges that thefather derivatively neglected the subject child, an infant born on October 23, 2011, basedupon prior adjudications that the father, through his drug use, neglected the child's twooldest siblings and derivatively neglected one of the child's older siblings.
The Family Court's finding of derivative neglect was supported by a preponderanceof the evidence, which demonstrated that the neglect and derivative neglect of the child'solder siblings was so proximate in time to the derivative proceeding that it canreasonably be concluded that the condition still existed (see Matter of Clarissa S.P. [JarisS.], 91 AD3d 785, 786 [2012]; Matter of Amber C., 38 AD3d 538, 540-541 [2007];Matter of Baby Boy W., 283 AD2d 584, 585 [2001]), and that the neglect andderivative neglect of the child's older siblings evinced a fundamental defect in the father'sunderstanding of the duties of parenthood (see Matter of Clarissa S.P. [Jaris S.],91 AD3d at 786). Since the father presented no evidence that the circumstances givingrise to the neglect and derivative neglect of the child's older siblings no longer existed,the Family Court properly made a finding of derivative neglect with respect to the subjectchild (see id.).[*2]
The father's challenge to the propriety of an orderof protection dated January 17, 2013, is not properly before this Court, as no appeal wastaken from that order. Skelos, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.