
    In the Matter of Ava M. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Michelle E.-M., Appellant.
    [6 NYS3d 6401-
   Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Daniel Turbow, J.), dated April 11, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, in effect, after a hearing, found that the mother neglected the subject child. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review a fact-finding order of the same court dated October 3, 2013.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court’s determination that the mother neglected the subject child is supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]). The evidence offered at the hearing established that the mother made repeated unfounded allegations of abuse against the father, necessitating that the young child undergo multiple medical examinations and interviews by police officers and caseworkers regarding intimate issues. Under the circumstances existing at the time, the mother’s repeated allegations presented an imminent danger of emotional or mental impairment to the child and did not meet the minimum degree of care required of a “reasonable and prudent parent” (Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 370 [2004]; see Matter of Forrest S.-R. [Shirley X.S.], 101 AD3d 734, 735-736 [2012]; Matter of Morgan R, 60 AD3d 1362, 1362 [2009]).

Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Motion by the appellant on an appeal from an order of disposition of the Family County, Kings County, dated April 11, 2014, inter alia, to strike the portion of the brief of the attorney for the child, contained on pages 37 through 39 of that brief, entitled “Subsequent Events,” on the ground that it refers to matter dehors the record. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated February 6, 2015, the branch of the motion which is to strike the above-stated portion of the brief of the attorney for the child on the ground that it refers to matter dehors the record was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to strike the portion of the brief of the attorney for the child, contained on pages 37 through 39 of that brief, entitled “Subsequent Events,” on the ground that it refers to matter dehors the record, is granted, and that portion of the brief has not been considered in the determination of the appeal.

Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.  