Case Name: In the Matter of Dahan S., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Sheila McL., Appellant; Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-05-07
Citations: 128 A.D.3d 453
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Dahan S., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Sheila McL., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services of the City of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 128
Pages: 453–454

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Dahan S., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Sheila McL., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services of the City of New York, Respondent.
[9 NYS3d 37]

Opinion:
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about June 2, 2014, to the extent it brings up for review a fact-finding order, same court and Judge, entered on or about April 9, 2014, which found that respondent mother neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Family Court's finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]). Among other things, respondent, who had tested positive for cocaine in 2011 and completed a drug treatment program in early 2012, tested positive for marijuana in May 2012, while four months pregnant with the subject child.
In addition to respondent's drug use, the Family Court properly relied on her failure to appear for at least one-third of the twice monthly random drug screenings and to find adequate housing pursuant to court orders issued as recently as 2012, as a result of earlier neglect findings, in 2001 and 2006, involving her other three children. By the time of the subject child's birth, respondent had yet to resolve the conditions that led to those earlier neglect findings (see e.g. Matter of Jayden C. [Luisanny A.], 126 AD3d 433 [1st Dept 2015]).
Moreover, respondent's failure to testify warranted drawing the "strongest adverse inference" against her (Matter of Vivienne Bobbi-Hadiya S. [Makena Asanta Malika McK.], 126 AD3d 545 [1st Dept 2015]; Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v Denise J., 87 NY2d 73, 79 [1995]). Concur— Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Richter and Gische, JJ.