Matter of Briana S. (LaQueena S.)

Annotate this Case
Matter of Matter of Briana S. (LaQueena S.) 2012 NY Slip Op 00039 Decided on January 5, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 5, 2012
Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels, Román, JJ.
6481

[*1]In re Briana S., and Another, Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,

and

LaQueena S., Respondent-Appellant, The Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.




Randall S. Carmel, Syosset, for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York
(Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Patricia
Colella of counsel), attorney for the children.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about March 4, 2010, which, after a fact-finding hearing, determined that respondent mother neglected the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The record demonstrates that the mother would be unable to care adequately for the infant children due to her documented history of mental retardation, mental illness, poor impulse control, impaired judgment, depression, medication noncompliance, and repeated psychiatric hospital admissions and treatment. Moreover, her problems have resulted in, among other things, her missing medical appointments for Daunte and his hospitalization for dehydration and weight loss. Under these circumstances, the court properly found that the children's "physical, mental or emotional condition . . . [was] in imminent danger of becoming impaired" (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f][i]; see Matter of Kayla W., 47 AD3d 571 [2008]). Contrary to the mother's contention, expert [*2]testimony as to how her mental illness affected her ability to care for the children was not required (see Matter of Jonathan S. [Ismelda S.], 79 AD3d 539 [2010]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 5, 2012

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.