It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order adjudicating two of his children to be neglected based on his failure to supply them with adequate education ( see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]). Contrary to the father's contention, petitioner met its burden of establishing educational neglect by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Ember R., 285 AD2d 757, 758, lv denied 97 NY2d 604). Petitioner submitted evidence establishing that each child had "a significant, unexcused absentee rate that [had] a detrimental effect on [each] child's education" ( Ember R., 285 AD2d at 758; see Matter of Matthew B., 24 AD3d 1183; Matter of Dareth O., 304 AD2d 667). The father failed to present "evidence that the [children are] attending school and receiving the required instruction in another place" or to establish a reasonable justification for the children's absences and thus failed to rebut the prima facie evidence of educational neglect ( Matter of Christa H., 127 AD2d 997, 997; see Matter of Brian H., 2 Misc 3d 1003[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51715[U]; see generally Matthew B., 24 AD3d 1183).