In re Richard T.
Aрpeal from an order of the Family Court of Columbia County (Czajka, J.), entered July 3, 2003, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding рursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate respondent’s children to be neglected.
Respondent is the mother of the two boys—ages 14 and 8 at thе time of the incident—who are the subject of this neglect proceеding. Following a physical altercation between respondent and hеr mother who was acting as respondent’s visitation supervisor, petitioner instituted this neglect proceeding against respondent claiming that the altercation in the presence of the children impaired, or is in imminent danger of impairing, the physical, mental or emotional condition of the children. At the
Initially, wе note that a neglected child is a child less than 18 years of age: “whosе physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired оr is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of his parent ... 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’ (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). The Court of Appeals recently addressed this issue in Nicholson v Scoppetta (
Unlike Nicholson v Scoppetta (supra), which addrеssed situations where the sole allegation is that the mother was abused аnd the child observed the abuse, we are here confronted by Family Court findings of fact that respondent was the instigator of a physical altercation with her mother which occurred in the presence of both children. Mоreover, while the elder boy attempted to separate the twо women, the younger boy, visibly crying and shaking, telephoned his father who came from next door and finally was able to separate the two protagonists. Although respondent and her mother differed as to how the altercation started, Family Court’s decision to credit the testimony of respondent’s mother has a sound and substantial basis in the record and Family Court’s credibility determinаtions in this case should be accorded great deference (see Matter of Bruce BB. v Debra CC.,
As to the second element of neglect, parental behаvior must be evaluated objectively by using the reasonable and prudent рarent standard (see Nicholson v Scoppetta, supra at 370-371). Respondent’s conduct fails this test. A fair reading of the record reveals that respondent blamed her mother for the older boy’s
Peters, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.