Neglect Based on Imminent Risk from Untreated Mental Health Symptoms and Substance Use Where Parent Refuses Testing and Lacks a Sober Caregiver

Case: Matter of Aphrodite A. (Heather A.)
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02012 (3d Dept Apr. 2, 2026)

1. Introduction

This Article 10 neglect appeal arose after the Broome County Department of Social Services filed a petition alleging that Heather A. (the mother) placed her child (born 2021) at harm or imminent risk of harm due to untreated mental health concerns and substance abuse issues. The child had been returned to the mother’s care only days earlier following the resolution of a prior neglect proceeding involving indicated reports for similar issues.

The key question was whether the proof—centered on an episode of reported hallucinations/paranoia while the child was in the mother’s sole care, the mother’s marijuana use while holding the child, the absence of a sober caregiver, refusal to drug test, and limited engagement with mental-health treatment—supported (1) a failure to exercise a minimum degree of care in supervision/guardianship and (2) actual or imminent impairment to the child.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Family Court’s neglect adjudication. The court held the record had a “sound and substantial basis” for concluding that:

  • The mother failed to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing proper supervision/guardianship (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]), and
  • The child’s condition was impaired or in imminent danger of becoming impaired (Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]), even without proof of actual injury.

The court emphasized that neglect may be found on imminent risk alone and can be established by a single incident or circumstance.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The decision situates itself within a settled Article 10 framework and draws on multiple precedents to reinforce three themes: (i) the two-part neglect test, (ii) imminent risk suffices and may be shown by a single incident, and (iii) deference to Family Court on facts/credibility.

  • Matter of Kingston V. [Javon V.], 234 AD3d 1056 (3d Dept 2025), lv dismissed 43 NY3d 951 (2025): Cited for the governing two-part test (impairment/imminent impairment + failure to exercise minimum degree of care) and for the point that imminent threat alone can support a neglect finding and may be established by a single incident. The Third Department uses Kingston as the principal template for articulating the standard and then mapping the mother’s conduct onto it.
  • Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357 (2004): Cited as foundational authority on neglect standards and the relationship between risk of harm and minimum parental care. Nicholson supplies the statewide baseline that neglect determinations must rest on proof of actual or imminent impairment causally linked to inadequate parental care.
  • Matter of Aerobella T. [Bartolomeo V.], 170 AD3d 1453 (3d Dept 2019): Reinforces that a single incident/circumstance can establish imminent threat—important here because the petition was triggered by a discrete episode shortly after reunification.
  • Matter of Bonnie FF. [Marie VV.], 220 AD3d 1078 (3d Dept 2023): Cited for the “reasonable and prudent parent” formulation of the “minimum degree of care” inquiry.
  • Matter of Jasic UU. [Natasha UU.], 246 AD3d 1271 (3d Dept 2026) and Matter of Cheyenne Q. [Charles Q.], 196 AD3d 747 (3d Dept 2021), lv denied 37 NY3d 915 (2021): Additional Third Department authority reinforcing the same reasonable-and-prudent-parent benchmark.
  • Matter of Addilyn I. [Richard I.], 245 AD3d 1038 (3d Dept 2026); Matter of Raquel ZZ. [Angel ZZ.], 216 AD3d 1242 (3d Dept 2023); Matter of Asiah S. [Nancy S.], 212 AD3d 1062 (3d Dept 2023), lv denied 39 NY3d 913 (2023): Cited for the appellate deference rule: Family Court’s factual findings and credibility determinations receive great weight and are upheld if supported by a sound and substantial basis.
  • Matter of Nina VV. [Wendy VV.], 216 AD3d 1215 (3d Dept 2023) and Matter of Alexis TT. [Andrea VV.], 204 AD3d 1311 (3d Dept 2022): Used to support the conclusion that the mother’s actions reflected a failure to act as a reasonably prudent parent under the circumstances.
  • Matter of Wynter V. [Felitta V.], 230 AD3d 505 (2d Dept 2024); Matter of C.B. [Tiffany S.], 225 AD3d 415 (1st Dept 2024); Matter of Maggie YY. [Lisa ZZ.], 172 AD3d 1562 (3d Dept 2019): Cited as examples where similar fact patterns supported findings of actual or imminent danger to the child.
  • Compare: Matter of Chloe P.-M. [Martinique P.], 220 AD3d 783 (2d Dept 2023): Cited as a contrast case, signaling that not every concerning set of circumstances rises to neglect; here, the Third Department concluded the mother’s constellation of symptoms/choices crossed the line into imminent risk.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning follows the statutory two-step.

(A) Minimum degree of care (supervision/guardianship). The court credited evidence that on August 26, 2023 the mother experienced hallucinations and paranoid delusions while the child was in her sole care, declined a relative’s offer to relocate to a safer setting, and instead used marijuana while holding the child—leaving the child without a sober caregiver. The court also relied on post-incident conduct demonstrating limited insight and risk-management:

  • Refusal to submit to drug testing (despite initially agreeing), and
  • Inadequate engagement with mental health treatment (including inaccuracies about provider waitlists/capacity).

The Third Department framed these as choices a “reasonable and prudent parent” would not make under similar circumstances—especially given the proximity to a recent reunification after prior indicated reports involving untreated mental health and substance abuse.

(B) Actual or imminent impairment. The court reiterated that Article 10 does not require actual injury; imminent threat is enough and can be shown by a single incident. Here, the imminent-risk showing did not rest on speculation alone: the record contained testimony about the mother’s perception of nonexistent threats, repeated police welfare checks, an officer’s concern that the mother continuously moved the child to escape voices “that weren’t actually present,” and statements suggesting the mother believed the child wanted to harm her. Even though officers observed the child in good health and did not perceive the mother as an immediate danger to self/others, the court focused on the child-safety implications of impaired judgment, altered perception, and the lack of a sober caregiver.

(C) Appellate posture. The “sound and substantial basis” standard did significant work: once Family Court credited key testimony (particularly the cousin’s and the caseworker’s), the appellate court found no basis to disturb the neglect finding.

3.3 Impact

Although the decision applies existing doctrine rather than announcing a novel statutory test, it sharpens how imminent risk may be proven in cases involving mental health symptoms coupled with substance use:

  • Combination of factors matters. The court treated hallucinations/paranoia, substance use while responsible for the child, and the absence of a sober caregiver as mutually reinforcing indicators of imminent danger.
  • Post-incident refusal and non-engagement can evidence ongoing risk. Refusing drug testing and failing to take effective steps toward treatment supported the inference that the underlying safety threat was unresolved.
  • “No actual injury” is not a defense. The child’s good health and police perceptions did not negate neglect where the mother’s condition and decisions created an imminent threat.
  • Reunification context heightens scrutiny. The close temporal proximity to the child’s return following prior indicated reports made the risk assessment more concrete and less hypothetical.

Practically, the case will be cited by agencies and courts when evaluating whether acute psychiatric symptoms and substance-related impairment—paired with refusal to test and lack of safety planning—meet Article 10’s imminent-risk threshold.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • “Neglect” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]): Not simply “bad parenting.” It is a legal finding that a parent failed to provide at least minimal supervision/guardianship and, as a result, the child was harmed or put at imminent risk of harm.
  • “Imminent danger of becoming impaired”: The court can act before a child is injured. The question is whether the situation was likely to harm the child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition if it continued or recurred.
  • “Preponderance of the evidence”: The petitioner must show it is more likely than not that neglect occurred—lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • “Minimum degree of care” / “reasonable and prudent parent”: The measure is not perfection; it is whether an ordinarily careful parent would have acted differently in the same circumstances.
  • “Sound and substantial basis” (appellate review): Appeals courts generally do not re-try the case. If the record reasonably supports Family Court’s findings—especially credibility determinations—the order is typically affirmed.
  • “Indicated report”: A child protective determination that there is some credible evidence supporting the alleged maltreatment/neglect, often relevant as background and context in later proceedings.
  • “Safety plan”: An agreement/plan designed to manage risk (e.g., temporary placement with a relative). Here, the existence of a safety plan did not erase the prior risk; it underscored that intervention was necessary.

5. Conclusion

Matter of Aphrodite A. (Heather A.) reaffirms that New York neglect findings may rest on imminent risk proven by a single, recent incident—particularly where untreated mental health symptoms affect perception and judgment, substance use occurs while caring for the child, no sober caregiver is present, and the parent refuses drug testing or fails to engage meaningfully in treatment. The decision also illustrates the decisive role of Family Court credibility findings and the limited scope of appellate reversal when the record provides a sound and substantial basis for the adjudication.