Ulster Cnty. Dep't of Servs. v. Armando K. (In re Aiden J.)

• Decision Date: 05 August 2021
• Docket Number: 528263
• Parties: In the MATTER OF AIDEN J. and Others, Alleged to be Neglected Children. Ulster County Department of Services, Respondent; v. Armando K., Appellant. (And Two Other Related Proceedings.)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

197 A.D.3d 798

151 N.Y.S.3d 558

In the MATTER OF AIDEN J. and Others, Alleged to be Neglected Children.Ulster County Department of Services, Respondent;

v. Armando K., Appellant.(And Two Other Related Proceedings.)

528263

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: June 2, 2021

Decided and Entered: August 5, 2021

MariAnn Connolly, Kingston, for appellant.

Ulster County Department of Social Services, Kingston (Daniel Gartenstein of counsel), for respondent.

Michelle I. Rosien, Philmont, attorney for the children.

Before: Lynch, J.P., Clark, Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Aarons, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Ulster County (Savona, J.), entered December 7, 2018, which granted petitioner's applications, in three proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate the subject children to be neglected.

Respondent is the father of two children (born in 2006 and 2014) and a person legally responsible for another child (born in 2013). The middle child and the youngest child have the same biological mother. Petitioner commenced these neglect proceedings against respondent stemming from allegations that he left the middle and youngest children in the mother's care while knowing that the mother was highly intoxicated.¹ A fact-finding hearing was held, after which Family Court found that respondent neglected the middle and youngest children and that the oldest child was derivatively neglected. Respondent appeals. We reverse.

Neglect is established when a preponderance of the evidence shows that "the children's physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and that the actual or threatened harm to the children results from the parent's failure to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the children with proper supervision or guardianship" ( Matter of Jakob Z. [Matthew Z. – Mare AA.], 156 A.D.3d 1170, 1171, 66 N.Y.S.3d 744 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Cailynn O. [Vincenzo Q.], 192 A.D.3d 1408, 1409–1410, 144 N.Y.S.3d 481 [2021] ). At a hearing to establish neglect, "only competent, material and relevant evidence may be admitted" ( Family Ct Act § 1046[b][iii] ).

The record discloses that separate neglect petitions were filed against the mother and that, prior to respondent's hearing, they were disposed of after the mother admitted to a finding of neglect. However, at respondent's hearing, which the mother was not a party to, petitioner's caseworker testified as to what the mother had told her based upon their conversations. In this regard, the caseworker stated that the mother told her that, while the middle and youngest children were with her, she had been drinking heavily, that the mother believed that she may have assaulted one of the children and that, after respondent took the children for a while, he came back to her with some vodka, which she drank. As respondent and the attorney for the children correctly argue, Family Court improperly relied on this hearsay testimony – i.e., what the mother told the caseworker – in reaching its determination (see Matter of Lydia DD. [Khalil P.], 110 A.D.3d 1399, 1400, 974 N.Y.S.2d 169 [2013] ; Matter of Nicholas C. [Erika H. – Robert C.], 105 A.D.3d 1402, 1402–1403, 964 N.Y.S.2d 806 [2013] ; Matter of Imani B., 27 A.D.3d 645, 646, 811 N.Y.S.2d 447 [2006] ), and the error in doing so was not harmless (compare Matter of Jack NN. [Sarah OO.], 173 A.D.3d 1499, 1503, 105 N.Y.S.3d 146 [2019], lvs denied 34 N.Y.3d 904, 112 N.Y.S.3d 686, 136 N.E.3d 419 [2019] ).

Regarding the remaining, nonhearsay evidence, the evidence credited by Family Court failed to establish that respondent's actions placed the middle and youngest children at harm or at risk of imminent danger of harm so as to support a finding of neglect (see Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i][B] ; Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357, 370, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840 [2004] ). The uncontroverted evidence demonstrated that respondent, who lived in the same apartment...