Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or distributions.
To establish neglect in a child protective proceeding, the petitioner must show "first, that a child's physical, mental, or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and second, that the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship" ( Matter of Tajani B., 49 AD3d 874, 875 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368; Matter of Lester M., 44 AD3d 944; Matter of Dimitriy R., 39 AD3d 866; Family Ct Act § 1012 [f]). In the instant case, the Family Court's finding that the father neglected his eight-year-old daughter, Tylasia B., was supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [b] [i]). The nonhearsay evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing was sufficient to establish that the father allowed Tylasia B. to ride in a car driven by her mother when he knew or should have known that the mother was intoxicated ( see e.g. Matter of Carlena B., 61 AD3d 752; Matter of Lester M., 44 AD3d 944; Matter of Miyani M., 4 AD3d 430; Matter of Kanika M., 270 AD2d 490; Matter of K. Children, 253 AD2d 764; Matter of R.W. Children, 240 AD2d 207). In addition, following the fact-finding hearing, the father admitted to ongoing substance abuse ( see Matter of Issiah C., 24 AD3d 438).
Since the evidence of neglect as to Tylasia B. demonstrated such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for other children in the father's care, the Family Court properly, in effect, found that the other child, Wayne B., Jr., was derivatively neglected ( see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]; Matter of Carlena B., 61 AD3d at 752; Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Noreen K.], 242 AD2d 533, 534). The requirement that the father enter a substance abuse program and undergo drug testing was in the best interests of the children ( see Matter of Carlena B., 61 AD 3d at 752; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y. v Leona W., 192 AD2d 602, 603).
The father's remaining contention is without merit ( see Matter of James HH., 234 AD2d 783, 785).