| Matter of Beautisha B. (Racquirine A.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01745 [115 AD3d 854] |
| March 19, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Beautisha B. Suffolk County Departmentof Social Services, Respondent; Racquirine A., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In theMatter of Sterling B. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent;Racquirine A., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Inbunique V. SuffolkCounty Department of Social Services, Respondent; Racquirine A., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 3.) |
—[*1] Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Randall J. Ratje ofcounsel), for respondent. Robert C. Mitchell, Central Islip, N.Y. (John B. Belmonte of counsel), attorney forthe children.
In three related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, themother appeals from a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Suffolk County(Loguercio, J.), dated June 21, 2012, which, after a hearing, found that she had neglectedthe child Inbunique V. and derivatively neglected the children Beautisha B. and SterlingB.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
After a fact-finding hearing pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, anydetermination that the child is neglected must be based on a preponderance of theevidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Nicole V., 71NY2d 112, 117 [1987]). To establish a fact by a preponderance of the evidence means toprove that the fact is more likely than not to have occurred (see Matter of TammieZ., 66 NY2d 1 [1985]).
The finding of neglect with respect to Inbunique V. was supported by apreponderance [*2]of the evidence, which demonstratedthat the mother's failure to obtain psychiatric treatment for the subject child placed thechild's mental and emotional condition "in imminent danger of becoming impaired"(Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; see Matter of Deanna R.G. [Rajkumare B.], 83 AD3d 1064[2011]; Matter of LeVonnG., 20 AD3d 530 [2005]; Matter of Krewsean S., 273 AD2d 393,393-394 [2000]).
In addition, since the mother's unwillingness to pursue a recommended course ofpsychiatric treatment for Inbunique demonstrated a fundamental defect in herunderstanding of parental duties relating to the care of children, there was sufficientevidence for the Family Court to make a finding of derivative neglect with respect toBeautisha B. and Sterling B. (see Matter of James S. [Kathleen S.], 88 AD3d 1006,1006-1007 [2011]; Matter ofPerry S., 22 AD3d 234, 235 [2005]). Dillon, J.P., Hall, Austin and Sgroi, JJ.,concur.