Opinion
Nos. 2007-03084, 2007-03085 (Docket Nos. N-69-06, N-70-06, N-71-06).
May 13, 2008.
In three related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Orange County (Klein, J.), dated July 18, 2006, which, after a hearing, found, in effect, that the subject children were derivatively neglected, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated January 8, 2007, which, upon the fact-finding order, determined, inter alia, that the children should remain in the custody of the Orange County Department of Social Services.
Michele Marte-Indzonka, Newburgh, N.Y., for appellant.
David Darwin, County Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Peter R. Schwarz of counsel), for respondent.
Jeanmarie A. Marquardt, Shrub Oak, N.Y., attorney for the children.
Before: Fisher, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Belen, JJ.
Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the fact-finding order was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner had the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the father neglected the subject children ( see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f], § 1046 [b] [i]; Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368). The petitioner satisfied that burden with evidence that, inter alia, the father was convicted of multiple sexual abuse crimes against child victims other than the subject children. A derivative finding of neglect should be made where the evidence of abuse of another child or children demonstrates such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in the respondent's care ( see Matter of Ian H., 42 AD3d 701; Matter of Amber C., 38 AD3d 538, 540; Matter of Nicole G., 21A AD2d 478, 479 [2000]; Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Noreen K.], 242 AD2d 533, 534; Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. v Douglas E., 191 AD2d 694, 694).
The father's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.