Matter of Beautisha B. (Racquirine A.)

Matter of Beautisha B. (Racquirine A.) 2014 NY Slip Op 01745 Decided on March 19, 2014 Appellate Division, Second 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 March 19, 2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
L. PRISCILLA HALL
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
2012-06606
(Docket Nos. N-2014-12, N-2015-12, N-2927-12)

[*1]In the Matter of Beautisha B. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent;

and

Racquirine A. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1)



In the Matter of Sterling B. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent;

and

Racquirine A. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)



In the Matter of Inbunique V.(Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent;

and

Racquirine A. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 3)




Robert M. Garcia, Central Islip, N.Y., for appellant.
Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y.
(Randall J. Ratje of counsel), for respondent.
Robert C. Mitchell, Central Islip, N.Y. (John B. Belmonte of
counsel), attorney for the children.


DECISION & ORDER

In three related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother 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 neglected the child Inbunique V. and derivatively neglected the children Beautisha B. and Sterling B.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

After a fact-finding hearing pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, any determination that the child is neglected must be based on a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046[b]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 117). To establish a fact by a preponderance of the evidence means to prove that the fact is more likely than not to have occurred (see Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1).

The finding of neglect with respect to Inbunique V. was supported by a preponderance [*2]of the evidence, which demonstrated that the mother's failure to obtain psychiatric treatment for the subject child placed the child'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; Matter of LeVonn G., 20 AD3d 530; Matter of Krewsean S., 273 AD2d at 393-394).

In addition, since the mother's unwillingness to pursue a recommended course of psychiatric treatment for Inbunique demonstrated a fundamental defect in her understanding of parental duties relating to the care of children, there was sufficient evidence for the Family Court to make a finding of derivative neglect with respect to Beautisha B. and Sterling B. (see Matter of James S. [Kathleen S.], 88 AD3d 1006, 1006-1007; Matter of Perry S., 22 AD3d 234, 235).
DILLON, J.P., HALL, AUSTIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court