Case Name: In the Matter of John S., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Milica S., Also Known as Millica S., Appellant; Administration for Children's Services, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-03-31
Citations: 137 A.D.3d 706
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of John S., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Milica S., Also Known as Millica S., Appellant; Administration for Children's Services, Respondent.
Judges: Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 706–707

Head Matter:
In the Matter of John S., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Milica S., Also Known as Millica S., Appellant; Administration for Children's Services, Respondent.
[27 NYS3d 382]

Opinion:
Order, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about February 19, 2015, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that respondent mother neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner agency satisfied its burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that respondent neglected the child (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [fj [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]). There are no grounds for disturbing the court's credibility determinations (see Matter of Fernando S., 63 AD3d 610 [1st Dept 2009]). Respondent placed the child in imminent danger after she became intoxicated on the night of December 15, 2013, assaulted the child's father in the child's presence, and assaulted the child (see Matter of Raima W., 59 AD3d 633 [2d Dept 2009]). Her participation in and completion of 12 weeks of intensive outpatient treatment after the instant neglect petition was filed against her, while positive, does not warrant a diffrent disposition on the issue of neglect (see Matter of Elijah J. [Yvonda M.], 105 AD3d 449, 450 [1st Dept 2013]; Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [iii]).
Respondent failed to preserve her argument that the petition should have been dismissed pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051 (c), and we decline to consider it (see Matter of Cherish C. [Shanikwa C.], 102 AD3d 597 [1st Dept 2013]). Were we to consider it, we would reject it.
Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.