Impaired Parental Judgment and Paranoia—Even Without Proven Mental-Health or Drug Etiology—Can Sustain an Article 10 Neglect Finding

I. Introduction

Matter of Jasic UU. (Natasha UU.) (Appellate Division, Third Department, Feb. 19, 2026) arises from an Article 10 neglect proceeding brought by the Tioga County Department of Social Services against Natasha UU. (the mother) concerning two children (born 2009 and 2018). After a report that the mother presented the younger child to a hospital with suspicion of sexual abuse by an unnamed babysitter—and subsequent refusal to permit an interview or complete examination—DSS continued contact with the family amid escalating concerns. In September 2023, DSS protectively removed the children pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1024 and filed a neglect petition alleging the mother’s paranoia and possible mental-health/substance-abuse condition impaired her ability to understand and meet the children’s needs.

The core issues on appeal were: (1) whether the proof supported a neglect adjudication under Family Ct Act § 1012 (f) (i), (2) whether the disposition (continued placement with DSS rather than return to the mother) served the children’s best interests, and (3) whether claims concerning the attorney for the children (AFC) were preserved and, if reached, had merit.

II. Summary of the Opinion

The Third Department affirmed the neglect adjudication and the dispositional order continuing placement with DSS. The Court held that DSS proved by a preponderance that the mother failed to exercise a minimum degree of care, placing the children in imminent danger of impairment. Critically, the Court emphasized that while the record did not establish whether the mother’s conduct stemmed from mental health or drug use, it did establish impaired parental judgment creating a substantial risk of harm. The Court also rejected (as unpreserved) the mother’s challenge to the effectiveness of the AFC, and noted that, even if reviewed, the record demonstrated meaningful representation.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

  • Matter of Raquel ZZ. [Angel ZZ.], 216 AD3d 1242 (3d Dept 2023): Provided the governing two-part neglect test: (1) impairment or imminent danger of impairment, and (2) causation by a failure to exercise a minimum degree of care in supervision/guardianship. The Court used this framework as the basic analytical lens for the fact-finding determination.
  • Matter of Caylin T. [Christine T.], 229 AD3d 859 (3d Dept 2024), and Matter of Hakeem S. [Sarah U.], 206 AD3d 1537 (3d Dept 2022), lv denied 39 NY3d 904 (2022): Reinforced that “neglect” is measured against the conduct of a reasonable and prudent parent under the circumstances and requires an imminent threat that is “near or impending,” not merely speculative. The Court relied on these principles to characterize the mother’s conduct—unfounded accusations, refusal to allow access to the younger child, and rejection of offered services—as objectively unreasonable.
  • Matter of Kingston V. [Javon V.], 234 AD3d 1056 (3d Dept 2025), lv dismissed 43 NY3d 951 (2025): Supplied the key proposition that neglect may be found on proof of an imminent threat alone and that such threat may be established by a single incident or circumstance. This supported the Court’s conclusion that the mother’s cluster of behaviors created a sufficient imminent risk even absent proof of actual injury to the children.
  • Matter of Asiah S. [Nancy S.], 212 AD3d 1062 (3d Dept 2023), lv denied 39 NY3d 913 (2023); Matter of Jacklynn BB. [Donna CC.], 155 AD3d 1363 (3d Dept 2017); and Matter of Asiah S. [Nancy S.], 228 AD3d 1034 (3d Dept 2024), lv denied 42 NY3d 907 (2024): These authorities anchored the Court’s reliance on risk-based proof. Here, the mother’s impaired judgment was linked to concrete indicators of harm risk, including the older child’s expressed intent to self-harm resulting in psychiatric hospitalization—evidence the Court treated as corroborative of a harmful environment and inadequate parental judgment.
  • Matter of Alexisana PP. [Beverly PP.], 136 AD3d 1170 (3d Dept 2016): Cited for deference to Family Court’s factual findings and credibility determinations and for upholding neglect findings where the record establishes exposure to imminent risk.
  • Matter of Joseph GG. [Chrystal FF.], 227 AD3d 1238 (3d Dept 2024), and Matter of Ava OO. [Michael NN.], 235 AD3d 1135 (3d Dept 2025): Provided the dispositional standard: best interests analysis based on current information, parental capacity to supervise, and the potential threat of future neglect. The Court applied these principles to uphold continued placement where the mother’s concerning conduct persisted and she failed to complete drug screens and mental-health evaluations.
  • Matter of Jaylin XX. [Jamie YY.], 216 AD3d 1224 (3d Dept 2023), and Matter of Asiah S. [Nancy S.], 212 AD3d 1062 (3d Dept 2023): Supported affirmance of continued placement when the parent’s behaviors do not improve post-adjudication and continuing risks remain.
  • Matter of Olivia RR. [Paul RR.], 207 AD3d 822 (3d Dept 2022), and Matter of Marina C. v Dario D., 228 AD3d 1016 (3d Dept 2024), lv denied 42 NY3d 909 (2024): Used to hold the mother’s AFC-related claims unpreserved where she did not seek removal of the AFC or claim improper substitution of judgment in Family Court.
  • Matter of Alyson J. [Laurie J.], 88 AD3d 1201 (3d Dept 2011), lv denied 18 NY3d 803 (2012): Cited for the “meaningful representation” standard in assessing the effectiveness of counsel in child protective proceedings; the Court stated that even if preserved, the record reflected meaningful representation.
  • Procedural/appealability authorities: Matter of Samantha E. v Nicholas F., 233 AD3d 1295 (3d Dept 2024); Matter of Tyrell FF. [Jaquasisa GG.], 166 AD3d 1331 (3d Dept 2018), appeal dismissed 33 NY3d 1063 (2019): Along with CPLR 5512 (a), Family Ct Act § 1112 (a), and CPLR 5520 (c), these cases supported the Court’s treatment of the notice-of-appeal defect. Although the notice referenced intermediate “decisions” (not independently appealable), the Court exercised discretion to deem the appeal taken from the final order.

B. Legal Reasoning

  1. Neglect standard applied to “imminent risk” and objective parental reasonableness. The Court focused on whether the mother’s conduct fell below a minimum degree of care and created an imminent risk to the children. It credited evidence that the mother: (a) refused to permit DSS access to the younger child after raising serious abuse concerns, (b) made escalating, unsubstantiated accusations that the older child stole and sold her Percocet and hacked her phone, (c) requested DSS take custody of the older child rather than participate in offered services (including a proposed PINS diversion intake), and (d) engaged in behavior observed by law enforcement as erratic/paranoid (e.g., reports inconsistent with reality).
  2. Etiology not required; impaired judgment creating substantial risk is sufficient. A notable feature of the Court’s reasoning is its express acknowledgement that the record did not establish whether the mother’s conduct was “mental health or drug related.” The Court nonetheless held the record demonstrated “an impaired level of parental judgment” creating “a substantial risk of harm.” In effect, the neglect adjudication was affirmed based on functional impairment and risk, not a proven diagnosis or confirmed intoxication.
  3. Causation and risk indicators. The Court connected the mother’s impaired judgment to concrete harm risk, referencing, among other things, the older child’s expression of intent to self-harm and subsequent psychiatric hospitalization. This supported the conclusion that the home environment and parental decision-making had progressed beyond eccentricity into a level of dysfunction posing imminent danger.
  4. Dispositional best interests: persistence of concerns and noncompliance with evaluations/screens. At disposition, the Court relied on evidence that the mother’s behaviors had not improved, that her statements during visits caused the children anxiety and stress, and that she failed to undergo requested drug screens and mental-health evaluations. Under the best-interests precedents, this supported continued placement rather than reunification.
  5. Preservation doctrine applied to AFC complaints; meaningful representation noted. The Court held the mother’s ineffective-assistance-type claims regarding the AFC were unpreserved because she did not seek removal of the AFC or allege improper substitution of judgment in Family Court. Alternatively, the Court stated that meaningful representation was provided.

C. Impact

  • Risk-focused neglect findings without a proven clinical cause. The decision reinforces that, in Article 10 cases, DSS need not prove the parent’s precise underlying condition (e.g., a specific mental illness diagnosis or confirmed drug abuse) if the evidence shows impaired judgment and objectively unreasonable conduct creating imminent danger to the child.
  • Noncooperation with protective inquiries can be substantive evidence of neglect when paired with risk-creating behavior. The mother’s refusal to allow access to the younger child after raising sexual abuse suspicions was treated not as a mere procedural frustration, but as part of an unreasonable pattern undermining child safety.
  • Disposition: post-adjudication conduct and compliance matter. The affirmance underscores that failure to engage in drug screens/mental-health evaluations and continued anxiety-producing conduct during visits can justify continued placement, even after fact-finding is complete.
  • Appellate practice: curable notice-of-appeal defects. The Court’s reliance on CPLR 5520 (c) signals continued willingness to overlook technical notice errors to reach the merits when a final order exists and intent to appeal is clear.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

Neglect (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i])
A civil finding that a parent failed to provide minimum care/supervision, resulting in actual harm or a near-and-impending risk of harm to the child.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof in neglect cases—more likely than not.
Imminent danger of impairment
A risk that is close at hand—not merely hypothetical—and can be shown even without an actual injury.
Minimum degree of care / reasonable and prudent parent
The benchmark is what a reasonable caregiver would do under similar circumstances, not whether parenting was perfect.
Family Ct Act § 1024 protective removal
An emergency removal mechanism allowing temporary removal of children without a prior court order under specified urgent circumstances.
PINS diversion intake
A noncriminal juvenile services pathway (“person in need of supervision”) that can provide interventions for behavioral or supervision issues.
AFC (attorney for the children) and “meaningful representation”
The AFC represents the children’s interests. Courts evaluate effectiveness under a “meaningful representation” standard, considering the totality of representation rather than isolated choices.
Preservation (issue preservation for appeal)
Many claims must be raised in the trial court first; otherwise, the appellate court may refuse to review them.

V. Conclusion

Matter of Jasic UU. (Natasha UU.) affirms a neglect adjudication and continued placement where the evidence showed a parent’s paranoia-driven, objectively unreasonable decision-making and noncooperation created an imminent risk of harm, even though the record did not prove whether the behavior was caused by mental illness or drug use. The decision highlights Article 10’s practical focus on child safety and parental functioning rather than diagnostic certainty, and it reiterates that dispositional outcomes hinge on current capacity, ongoing risk, and demonstrated engagement with remedial evaluations and services.