Opinion
2016–09240 Docket No. N–29628–13
05-23-2018
In the MATTER OF JAMEL N. A. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; v. Nijer S.J. (Anonymous), appellant.
Tammi D. Pere, West Hempstead, NY, for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and MacKenzie Fillow of counsel), for respondent. Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Dawne A. Mitchell and Riti P. Singh of counsel), attorney for the child.
Tammi D. Pere, West Hempstead, NY, for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and MacKenzie Fillow of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Dawne A. Mitchell and Riti P. Singh of counsel), attorney for the child.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Kings County (Jacqueline B. Deane, J.), dated July 19, 2016. The order of fact-finding, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the mother neglected the subject child.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging that the mother neglected the subject child by failing to provide him with an adequate education as demonstrated by the child's excessive school absences and tardiness. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the mother had neglected the child.
To establish educational neglect, the petitioner was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the child's "physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired" due to the mother's failure to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing him with an adequate education ( Family Ct. Act § 1012[f][i][A] ; see Family Ct. Act § 1046[b][i] ). Here, contrary to the contentions of the mother and the attorney for the child, the Family Court's determination that the mother neglected the child by failing to provide him with an adequate education was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The petitioner met its prima facie burden of establishing educational neglect by submitting unrebutted evidence of the child's excessive school absences and tardiness along with the child's failing grades (see Matter of McKain W. [Coreen M.], 157 A.D.3d 708, 708–709, 66 N.Y.S.3d 624 ; Matter of Joyitha M. [Reshmi M.], 121 A.D.3d 900, 901, 994 N.Y.S.2d 393 ). The mother did not offer any evidence in support of a reasonable justification for the child's absences, tardiness, or failing grades (see Matter of Kiamal E. [Kim R.], 139 A.D.3d 1062, 1063, 30 N.Y.S.3d 830 ; Matter of Khalil M. [Ebony A.], 94 A.D.3d 1003, 1003, 942 N.Y.S.2d 370 ).
RIVERA, J.P., DILLON, BRATHWAITE NELSON and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.