Case Name: In the Matter of Michael M. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Seida S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Sha'morra M. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Seida S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Sydney M. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Seida S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-04-19
Citations: 149 A.D.3d 938
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Michael M. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Seida S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Sha’morra M. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Seida S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Sydney M. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Seida S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.)
Judges: Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 149
Pages: 938–939

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Michael M. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Seida S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Sha’morra M. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Seida S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Sydney M. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Seida S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.)
[50 NYS3d 302]

Opinion:
Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Robert Mulroy, J.), dated July 21, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the mother neglected the subject children.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging that the mother neglected her children by failing to provide them with proper supervision or guardianship due to her mental illness. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the mother had neglected the subject children.
In a neglect proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject children were neglected (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Afton C. [James C.], 17 NY3d 1, 9 [2011]). Where issues of credibility are presented, the hearing court's findings are accorded great deference (see Matter of Samiha R. [Shante R.], 144 AD3d 690 [2016]; Matter of Negus T. [Fayme B.], 123 AD3d 836 [2014]).
Here, the findings of neglect were supported by a preponderance of the evidence, which demonstrated that the children were at imminent risk of harm as a result of the mother's untreated mental illness (see Matter of Mia C.W.D. [Tamika D.], 144 AD3d 1028 [2016]; Matter of Yu F. [Fen W.], 122 AD3d 761, 762 Matter of Angel Marie L., 5 AD3d 773, 774 [2004]; Matter of Essence V., 283 AD2d 652, 653 [2001]).
Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.