Case Name: In the Matter of Debraun M., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Walter C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Jermaine M., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Walter C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2006-11-14
Citations: 34 A.D.3d 587
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Debraun M., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Walter C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Jermaine M., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Walter C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 587–588

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Debraun M., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Walter C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Jermaine M., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Walter C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)
[826 NYS2d 76]

Opinion:
In related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated May 20, 2005, which, after a hearing, found that he had neglected the subject children.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court's findings of neglect based on the father's failure to provide proper supervision and guardianship, and locking out the older child from his home are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. By leaving a then-eight-year-old child unsupervised in a busy airport, and by changing the home locks to prevent the older child from coming home, the father placed the children in imminent risk of harm (see Matter of Antonio NN., 28 AD3d 826, 827-828 [2006]; cf. Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368 [2004]). Further, the record amply supports the Family Court's determination that the father's explanation for the eight-year-old child wandering by himself at the airport lacked credibility.
Alternatively, the finding that the father neglected the eight-year-old son was sufficient to support a finding of derivative neglect as to his older son (see Matter of Christina Maria C., 89 AD2d 855 [1982]). Crane, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.