Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contentions on appeal, the Family Court properly determined that both of her children were neglected within the meaning of Family Court Act § 1012 (f). The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearings established, inter alia, that Michael W. (anonymous), who was 11 years old at the time the petition was filed, was repeatedly forced by his mother to remain outside of the family residence for extended intervals of time, including periods lasting several days. Additionally, the Commissioner of Social Services demonstrated that Michael had been kept out of school for lengthy periods of time. Viewing the above evidence cumulatively (see, e.g., Matter of Maria A., 118 A.D.2d 641; Matter of Cerda, 114 A.D.2d 795; Matter of Victoria SS., 108 A.D.2d 989), we find that it amply supports a prima facie showing of neglect with respect to Michael. Moreover, a prima facie case of neglect was also established with respect to Tennille W. (anonymous), who was six years old at the time the petition was filed, based upon the established neglect of Michael (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]; Matter of Victoria SS., supra; Matter of Christina Maria C., 89 A.D.2d 855; Matter of Maureen G., 103 Misc.2d 109), as well as Tennille's unexplained and extremely high rate of absence from school (see generally, Matter of Chapman, 128 Misc.2d 379; Matter of Thomas H., 78 Misc.2d 412). The mother had the burden of coming forward with evidence to rebut the prima facie showing of neglect (see, Matter of Christopher S. v Kathleen S., 116 A.D.2d 653; Matter of Cerda, supra; Matter of Shawniece E., 110 A.D.2d 900), and she failed to do so. Thus, neglect was proven by a preponderance of the evidence with respect to both children.
We have considered the remaining contentions of the appellant mother and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.