Introduction

In Matter of Zaria P. (Sade G.), 2025 NY Slip Op 04181 (App Div, 2d Dept, July 16, 2025), the Appellate Division, Second Department, addressed an appeal in a Family Court Act article 10 neglect proceeding arising from allegations that the mother, Sade G., (1) inflicted excessive corporal punishment on her child, and (2) suffered from untreated mental illness that impaired her ability to care for the child. The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) petitioned, the Family Court (Queens County, Reid-Cherry, J.) entered a neglect finding after a fact-finding hearing, and—upon the mother’s consent—ordered placement and supervision at disposition.

On appeal, the mother challenged the neglect determination. The Second Department dismissed the appeal from the consent portions of the disposition (as nonappealable) but affirmed the neglect finding, emphasizing two doctrinal anchors: (i) a single episode of excessive corporal punishment can support a neglect finding when corroborated by observed injuries, and (ii) untreated mental illness, coupled with noncompliance and lack of insight, can place a child at imminent risk of harm and thus constitute neglect.

The decision consolidates recurring themes in Article 10 litigation: the flexible corroboration standard for a child’s hearsay statements, deference to Family Court’s credibility assessments, and the contours of mental-illness-based neglect where treatment noncompliance evidences imminent risk.

Summary of the Judgment

• Appeal posture:
  • The appeal from the January 4, 2024 fact-finding order was dismissed as superseded by the February 28, 2024 disposition, but the fact-finding issues were reviewed on the appeal from the disposition.
  • The appeal from the consent-based placement and supervision provisions of the disposition was dismissed because no appeal lies from a consent order.
• Neglect affirmed on two independent bases:
  • Excessive corporal punishment: The child’s out-of-court statements were corroborated by a school counselor’s personal observation of injury, satisfying Family Court Act corroboration requirements and the preponderance standard.
  • Untreated mental illness: ACS established a causal connection between the mother’s untreated mental illness (including lack of insight and noncompliance with prescribed medication and treatment) and imminent risk of harm to the child.
• Standard of review: The court afforded “great deference” to Family Court credibility determinations and found the evidentiary record sufficient under the “preponderance of evidence” standard.
• Outcome: Order of disposition affirmed insofar as reviewed; remaining contention by the mother was not properly before the court.

Detailed Analysis

1) Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The court’s analysis draws on well-settled Article 10 principles, reinforced by a cluster of Second Department authorities:

• Appeals from consent orders:
  • Matter of Kerry D. v Deena D., 230 AD3d 492, 493, and Matter of Tony C. [Kristine S.-Jadiel L.], 226 AD3d 1008, 1009: Both affirm that no appeal lies from an order entered upon the consent of the appealing party. Here, they foreclosed appellate review of the placement and supervision components consented to by the mother.
• Burden and elements of neglect:
  • Matter of Shayla G. [Lakisha C.], 233 AD3d 682, 684; Matter of Andrew M. [Brenda M.], 225 AD3d 764, 765; Family Ct Act § 1046(b)(i): Collectively articulate the preponderance standard for neglect and define the two-prong test—impairment or imminent risk plus failure to exercise a minimum degree of care under § 1012(f)(i)(B).
• Excessive corporal punishment:
  • Matter of Malik M. [Taishona M.], 236 AD3d 1034, 1036–1037; Matter of Veronica M. [Ana M.], 229 AD3d 626, 627–628; Matter of Elina M. [Leonard M.], 236 AD3d 25, 31; Matter of Moshae L. [Angela J.], 237 AD3d 821, 823: Confirm that reasonable physical discipline is permitted, but excessive corporal punishment constitutes neglect, and even a single excessive incident can suffice.
  • Matter of Joshua B., 28 AD3d 759, 761; Family Ct Act § 1046(a)(ii), (vi): Physical signs such as bruises or injuries can corroborate a child’s hearsay statements.
  • Matter of Alexander S. [Gabriel H.], 224 AD3d 907, 909; Matter of Nathaniel I. G. [Marilyn A.P.], 227 AD3d 806, 807; Matter of Raveena B. [Khrisend R.], 209 AD3d 640, 641–642: Emphasize that school personnel testimony observing injury is sufficient corroboration and can satisfy preponderance.
• Hearsay corroboration and deference:
  • Matter of Malik M. [Taishona M.], 236 AD3d at 1036–1037; Matter of Veronica M. [Ana M.], 229 AD3d at 628; Matter of Zamir F. [Ricardo B.], 193 AD3d 932, 933; Matter of Ashlyn M. [Robert J.], 228 AD3d 939, 941: Clarify the flexible corroboration rule and the appellate deference to Family Court’s credibility assessments.
• Mental illness–based neglect:
  • Matter of Bethany R. [Bethmarie R.], 202 AD3d 690, 692; Matter of Nialani T. [Elizabeth B.], 164 AD3d 1245, 1246; Matter of Joseph L. [Cyanne W.], 168 AD3d 1055, 1056: Recognize that mental illness alone is insufficient; a causal nexus to actual or imminent harm is required.
  • Matter of Precise M. [Tawana M.], 215 AD3d 680, 681; Matter of Bibi H. v ACS–Queens, 210 AD3d 771, 773; Matter of Moshae L. [Angela J.], 237 AD3d at 824–825; Matter of Tyler W. [Janice B.], 149 AD3d 968, 969: Establish that ongoing mental illness coupled with failure to comply with treatment/medication—and lack of insight—can create imminent risk, justifying a neglect finding.

These authorities supplied the framework for the court’s dual-track affirmance: physical discipline crossed into “excessive”—shown by corroborated injury—and the mother’s untreated mental illness, paired with noncompliance and lack of insight, established imminent risk of harm.

2) The Court’s Legal Reasoning

• Threshold appellate issues:
  • The fact-finding order appeal was procedurally unnecessary because the subsequently entered disposition superseded it. Its issues were reviewable on appeal from the disposition.
  • Because the mother consented to placement and supervisory conditions, those dispositional aspects were nonappealable. This preserved, however, appellate review of the neglect determination itself.
• Burden of proof:
  • ACS bore the burden to prove neglect by a preponderance of the evidence under FCA § 1046(b)(i), satisfying the two-part test of FCA § 1012(f)(i)(B): (a) impairment or imminent risk of impairment to the child’s condition and (b) causation through the parent’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of care.
• Excessive corporal punishment:
  • Although parents may use reasonable physical force to discipline, excessive corporal punishment constitutes neglect. Even a single excessive incident can suffice.
  • Evidence: The child’s out-of-court statements that the mother inflicted excessive punishment were deemed reliable because they were corroborated by the school counselor’s personal observation of injury—precisely the sort of independent evidence the flexible corroboration rule accepts.
  • Standard of review: The Family Court’s credibility findings received deference, strengthening the sufficiency of the proof.
• Untreated mental illness:
  • While mental illness alone cannot ground a neglect finding, ACS proved a causal link between the mother’s untreated condition and risk to the child. The record established lack of insight into an ongoing condition and a failure to comply with medication management and treatment—together creating imminent risk of harm.
  • This approach aligns with binding Second Department case law that treats treatment noncompliance (especially when coupled with impaired insight) as evidence the parent cannot meet the minimum degree of care in the foreseeable future.
• Disposition:
  • With neglect established on both grounds, the consent-based disposition—temporary placement and supervision until the next permanency hearing—remained intact and nonappealable. The court affirmed the order insofar as reviewed.

3) Impact and Prospective Significance

The Second Department’s opinion is a concise but consequential reaffirmation relevant to daily practice in child protective proceedings:

• Corroboration through school personnel:
  • The decision underscores that a school counselor’s first-hand observation of a child’s injury is sufficient to corroborate the child’s hearsay under FCA § 1046(a). This will likely encourage ACS to continue relying on school staff as critical witnesses and signals to defense counsel the importance of engaging with school-based evidence early—whether by cross-examination, alternate explanations for injuries, or expert testimony.
• Single-incident excessive discipline:
  • Practitioners should note that one excessive episode can satisfy the preponderance standard, particularly where physical marks or injuries are observed soon after. Parents’ counsel must be prepared to contest “excessiveness” with contextual evidence or to propose safety plans that mitigate risk and address judicial concerns.
• Mental illness, treatment adherence, and insight:
  • The opinion reinforces a clear path to a neglect finding when evidence shows ongoing mental health needs, noncompliance with prescribed treatment/medication, and lack of insight, together creating imminent risk. This increases the premium on:
    • Prompt engagement with mental health services,
    • Documentation of medication adherence, and
    • Demonstrated understanding of one’s condition and safety planning for the child.
  • Agencies should be prepared to prove the causal link between noncompliance or decompensation and risk to the child; parents’ counsel should consider independent evaluations and adherence plans to rebut risk inferences.
• Appellate practice:
  • The ruling reiterates that consent dispositions are nonappealable. Still, practitioners can secure appellate review of the underlying neglect determination by appealing from the disposition order itself. Counsel should carefully structure consents to preserve contested issues without foreclosing necessary appellate avenues.
• Judicial deference:
  • Because credibility determinations are owed great deference, trials will continue to be pivotal. Direct examinations that establish timing, condition of the child, and consistency of statements—and cross-examinations that test reliability—often decide outcomes long before appellate review.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Preponderance of the evidence: The proof shows that something is more likely true than not (greater than 50%). It is a lower standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
• Imminent risk of impairment: The child does not have to be harmed already; it is enough that harm is near at hand or likely if circumstances persist.
• Minimum degree of care: The legal baseline for parental care. Falling below this baseline—not merely making a different parenting choice—can constitute neglect.
• Excessive corporal punishment: Discipline crosses into neglect when physical force is unreasonable under the circumstances and results in injury or creates a substantial risk of impairment.
• Child’s hearsay and corroboration (FCA § 1046(a)): A child’s out-of-court statements can be considered if there is independent evidence supporting their reliability. Observed injuries commonly serve this role.
• Mental-illness-based neglect: Mental illness alone is not neglect. But if untreated or unaddressed, and if it impairs parenting such that the child faces imminent risk of harm, a neglect finding may be warranted.
• Consent order nonappealable: If a party agrees to a court order’s terms (e.g., temporary placement), they generally cannot appeal those agreed terms, though they may still appeal underlying findings that led to the order.
• “Brought up for review”: When a later order (disposition) is appealed, earlier interlocutory orders (fact-finding) on which it rests are reviewable as part of that appeal.
• Permanency hearing: A periodic court review in child protective cases to ensure timely, appropriate permanency planning, including reunification efforts or alternative permanency goals.

Conclusion

Matter of Zaria P. (Sade G.) fortifies three pillars of New York neglect jurisprudence. First, it confirms that a single episode of excessive corporal punishment, when corroborated by a school professional’s observation of injury, satisfies Article 10’s preponderance standard. Second, it reinforces that untreated mental illness—especially where marked by noncompliance with prescribed treatment and a lack of insight—can create an imminent risk of harm and independently support a neglect finding. Third, it reiterates core appellate practice: consent-based dispositions are nonappealable, while the underlying neglect determination remains reviewable on appeal from the disposition.

For practitioners, the decision underscores the evidentiary importance of school-based witnesses in corroborating children’s statements and highlights the centrality of treatment adherence and demonstrated insight in cases involving parental mental health. The ruling will guide Family Court litigants and counsel in shaping evidentiary presentations, crafting dispositional consents, and preserving issues for appellate review, all while reaffirming the flexible corroboration standard and the deference owed to trial-level credibility assessments.