Matter of Gabriella UU. ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                           State of New York
    Supreme Court, Appellate Division
    Third Judicial Department
    Decided and Entered:   December 29, 2016               522110
    522737
    ________________________________
    In the Matter of GABRIELLA UU.,
    Alleged to be a Neglected
    Child.
    ULSTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
    SOCIAL SERVICES,                         MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    Respondent;
    ROBERT UU.,
    Appellant.
    ________________________________
    Calendar Date:   November 21, 2016
    Before:   McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Rose, Clark and Aarons, JJ.
    __________
    Ted J. Stein, Woodstock, for appellant.
    Daniel Gartenstein, Ulster County Department of Social
    Services, Kingston, for respondent.
    Betty J. Potenza, Highland, attorney for the child.
    __________
    Clark, J.
    Appeals from a decision and an order of the Family Court of
    Ulster County (Savona, J.), entered September 11, 2015 and
    November 6, 2015, which, among other things, granted petitioner's
    application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article
    10, to adjudicate the subject child to be neglected.
    Respondent is the father of a daughter (born in 2013).       On
    February 5, 2015, the child's mother and respondent took the
    -2-                522110
    522737
    child to the emergency room to address swelling in the child's
    left forearm and a subsequent X ray revealed that the child had
    sustained a spiral fracture to her radial bone and a mid-shaft
    fracture to her ulna bone. Petitioner thereafter commenced this
    Family Ct Act article 10 proceeding against respondent.
    Following a fact-finding hearing, Family Court issued a written
    decision concluding that petitioner had proven, by a
    preponderance of the evidence, that respondent had grabbed the
    child's left forearm with sufficient force and in such a manner
    as to cause the fractures and, in a November 6, 2015 order of
    fact-finding and disposition, adjudged the child to have been
    neglected by respondent, placed the child in the mother's care
    and issued an order of protection directing respondent to stay
    away from the mother and the child, except during visitation.
    Respondent appealed from both the written decision and the order
    of fact-finding and disposition.1
    To establish neglect, a petitioner must demonstrate, by a
    preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]),
    that the child was harmed or placed at risk of harm by the
    respondent's failure to exercise a minimum degree of care "in
    providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship, by
    unreasonably inflicting or allowing to be inflicted harm, or a
    substantial risk thereof, . . . or by any other acts of a . . .
    serious nature requiring the aid of the court" (Family Ct Act
    § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; see Matter of Izayah J. [Jose I.], 104 AD3d
    1107, 1108 [2013]). "[P]roof of injuries sustained by a child or
    of the condition of a child of such a nature as would ordinarily
    not be sustained or exist except by reason of the acts or
    omissions of the [respondent]," along with evidence that the
    respondent was the caretaker of the child at the time of the
    injury, shall be prima facie evidence of neglect (Family Ct Act
    § 1046 [a] [ii]; see Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d 238, 243
    1
    Inasmuch as an appeal does not lie from a decision of the
    court (see Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; Matter of Jesse XX. [Marilyn
    ZZ.], 69 AD3d 1240, 1242 n [2010]; see also CPLR 5512 [a]; Family
    Ct Act § 165), respondent's appeal from the decision entered
    September 11, 2015 must be dismissed.
    -3-                522110
    522737
    [1993]; Matter of Sidney FF., 44 AD3d 1121, 1122 [2007]), thereby
    shifting the burden to the respondent "to rebut the presumption
    of culpability by offering a reasonable and adequate explanation
    for how the child sustained the injury" (Matter of Ashlyn Q.
    [Talia R.], 130 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2015]; see Matter of Steven M.
    [Stephvon O.], 88 AD3d 1099, 1100-1101 [2011]).
    Here, the emergency room physician that attended to the
    child testified that she observed bruising on the lateral and
    anterior aspects of the child's left elbow, which appeared to be
    consistent with being "grabbed by a thumb, a hand grip," and that
    the fractures occurred at the same time and were caused by either
    a direct hit to the forearm or a forceful grab, pull and twist of
    the child's left arm. She asserted that an accidental fall on an
    outstretched hand would not have caused both the radial and ulna
    bones to fracture at the same time and in the manners in which
    they did and that the possible explanations given by the child's
    parents were inconsistent with the child's injuries. The child's
    mother testified that she noticed the swelling sometime after
    having left the child alone with respondent, and her estimations
    of time were consistent with the physician's assessment of when
    the child had sustained the bruises and fractures. The mother
    further testified that respondent had admitted to pulling on the
    child's arm, and petitioner offered into evidence Facebook
    messages between respondent and the mother in which respondent
    acknowledged responsibility for the child's injuries. The
    foregoing proof gave rise to the rebuttable presumption that
    respondent neglected the child (see Matter of Brayden UU. [Amanda
    UU.], 116 AD3d 1179, 1180 [2014]; Matter of Ameillia RR. [Megan
    SS.–Jered RR.], 112 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2013]; Matter of Izayah J.
    [Jose I.], 104 AD3d at 1108-1009), and, as respondent did not
    present any proof to rebut this presumption,2 we are satisfied
    2
    We also note that, given respondent's choice not to
    testify at the fact-finding hearing, Family Court permissibly
    drew the strongest possible negative inference against him (see
    Matter of Alexander Z. [Melissa Z.], 129 AD3d 1160, 1163-1164
    [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 914 [2015]; Matter of Heaven H. [Linda
    H.], 121 AD3d 1199, 1201 [2014]).
    -4-                  522110
    522737
    that Family Court's finding of neglect is supported by a
    preponderance of the credible evidence (see Matter of Ashlyn Q.
    [Talia R.], 130 AD3d at 1167-1169; Matter of Maddesyn K., 63 AD3d
    1199, 1200-1202 [2009]).
    McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Rose and Aarons, JJ., concur.
    ORDERED that the appeal from the decision entered September
    11, 2015 is dismissed, without costs.
    ORDERED that the order entered November 6, 2015 is
    affirmed, without costs.
    ENTER:
    Robert D. Mayberger
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 522110, 522737

Judges: Clark, McCarthy, Lynch, Rose, Aarons

Filed Date: 12/29/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2024