Ulster Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. S.F. (In re R.E.)

212 A.D.3d 1009

181 N.Y.S.3d 767

In the MATTER OF R.E., Alleged to be a Neglected Child.

Ulster County Department of Social Services, Respondent;

v.S.F., Appellant.

(Proceeding No. 1.)

In the Matter of R.E., Alleged to be a Neglected Child.

Ulster County Department of Social Services, Respondent;

v.C.G., Appellant.

(Proceeding No. 2.)

533995

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: December 15, 2022

Decided and Entered: January 19, 2023

Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for S.F., appellant.

Constantina Hart, Kauneonga Lake, for C.G., appellant.

Ulster County Department of Social Services, Kingston (Rebecca L. Balzac of counsel), for respondent.

Alexander W. Bloomstein, Hillsdale, attorney for the child.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Ceresia, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Garry, P.J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Ulster County (Anthony G. McGinty, J.), entered August 17, 2021, which granted petitioner's applications, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate the subject child to be neglected.

Respondent S.F. (hereinafter the father) and respondent C.G. (hereinafter the mother) are the parents of a child (born in 2018). In December 2019, petitioner commenced these neglect proceedings against respondents, alleging that respondents placed the child at substantial risk of harm by utilizing illegal drugs and/or drinking alcohol to excess while caring for the child and by engaging in acts of domestic violence against one another in the child's presence.¹ The mother consented to the removal of the child, and, following a hearing as to the father, the child was placed in petitioner's care and custody. Following a fact-finding hearing on the petitions, Family Court issued a bench decision finding that several of the domestic violence incidents alleged constituted acts of neglect. At the dispositional hearing, respondents consented to the child's continued placement with petitioner. Family Court then entered an order of fact-finding and disposition, from which respondents appeal.

"[A] party seeking to establish neglect must show, by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046[b][i] ), first, that a child's physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and[,] second, that the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship" ( Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357, 368, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840 [2004] ; see Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i][B] ). "Not every child exposed to domestic violence is at risk of impairment" ( Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d at 375, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840 ), but "[e]ven a single act of domestic violence may be sufficient to establish neglect if the child is present for such violence and is visibly upset and frightened by it" ( Matter of Kaitlyn SS. [Antonio UU.], 184 A.D.3d 961, 963, 125 N.Y.S.3d 200 [3d Dept. 2020] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]; see Matter of Ja'Sire FF. [Jalyssa GG.], 206 A.D.3d 1076, 1077, 168 N.Y.S.3d 601 [3d Dept. 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 912, 2022 WL 4100065 [2022] ). In terms of whether the harm is the consequence of some failure of the respondent parent, "[c]ourts must evaluate parental behavior objectively: would a reasonable and prudent parent have so acted, or failed to act, under the circumstances then and there existing" ( Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d at 370, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840 ; see Matter of Alexis TT. [Andrea VV.], 204 A.D.3d 1311, 1312, 167 N.Y.S.3d 243 [3d Dept. 2022] ).

According appropriate deference to Family Court's factual findings and credibility determinations (see Matter of Andreija N. [Michael N.-Tiffany O.], 206 A.D.3d 1081, 1084, 169 N.Y.S.3d 408 [3d Dept. 2022] ), the evidence at the fact-finding hearing revealed, among other abusive, erratic or otherwise concerning behavior, two specific incidents of domestic violence that support the court's findings of neglect.² During the first of these, in July 2019 when the child was one year old, the father accused the mother of hiding the father's drugs and proceeded to ransack their residence to locate same. In that process, the father literally threw the mother out of the front door and locked it. As the mother attempted to break a window to reenter the residence and retrieve the child, the father threw the child out of the front door, stating, "[h]ere is your f* * * * * * baby." The mother testified that she caught the child in mid-air. She then ran next door with the child to where the paternal grandmother lived and asked the grandmother to go over to respondents' residence and calm the father down. The grandmother refused to do so and told the mother that she needed to handle the situation herself. While still holding the child, the mother elected to take a knife from the grandmother's residence and return outside, where she ultimately encountered the father and, according to the credited testimony, stabbed him. The police arrived moments later. This incident resulted in the mother's arrest and her conviction of endangering the welfare of a child. The second incident took place in April 2020, when the child was about 20 months old. During the incident, the father grabbed the child from the mother's arms and threw the mother on the floor while he was holding the child. The court expressly credited the testimony of the mother and the mother's case manager that the father's conduct caused the child to cry, scream and become visibly fearful. The father then stated to the child that he and the child would kill the mother and make it appear as if it were a suicide.

Turning first to the father, although there were a multitude of instances of troubling behavior for which it was unclear from the proof where the child was or how he was impacted (see generally Matter of Hakeem S. [Sarah U.], 206 A.D.3d 1537, 1539–1540, 171 N.Y.S.3d 261 [3d Dept. 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 904, 2022 WL 17588062 [2022] ), for both of the foregoing incidents, the credited testimony established that the child was present and that his physical and/or emotional condition was either actually impaired or in imminent danger of becoming so. That impairment was a result of the father's actions, which plainly fell below those of a reasonable and prudent parent. Family Court's finding that petitioner met its burden as to the father is therefore supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Ja'Sire FF. [Jalyssa GG.], 206 A.D.3d at 1078–1079, 168 N.Y.S.3d 601 ; Matter of Kieran XX. [Kayla ZZ.], 154 A.D.3d 1094, 1095, 62 N.Y.S.3d 572 [3d Dept. 2017] ; Matter of Paige AA. [Anthony AA.], 85 A.D.3d 1213, 1216, 924 N.Y.S.2d 605 [3d Dept. 2011], lv denied 17...