DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Monica D. Shulman, J.), dated December 16, 2022. The order, (1) after a fact-finding hearing, found that the mother neglected the subject child, and (2) after a hearing, denied the mothers application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 for the return of the subject child to her custody during the pendency of the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
By petition dated March 9, 2022, the Administration for Childrens Services (hereinafter ACS) commenced this Family Court Act article 10 proceeding, alleging, inter alia, that the mother neglected the subject child due to mental illness. The child was removed from the mothers care, placed in the custody of ACS, and placed in foster care. In November 2022, after a fact-finding hearing on the petition had commenced, the mother made an application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 for the return of the child to her care during the pendency of the proceeding. The Family Court conducted a combined fact-finding hearing on the petition and hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028. After the combined hearing, in an order dated December 16, 2022, the court found that the mother neglected the child, denied the mothers application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028, and adjourned the matter for a dispositional hearing. The mother appeals.
“At a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of evidence that the subject child has been abused or neglected” (Matter of Khaleef M.S.-P. [Khaleeda M.S.], 203 A.D.3d 1160, 1161, 165 N.Y.S.3d 130; see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[f][i]; 1046[b][i]). “Even though evidence of a parents mental illness, alone, is insufficient to support a finding of neglect of a child, such evidence may be part of a neglect determination when the proof further demonstrates that the parents condition creates an imminent risk of physical, mental, or emotional harm to the child” (Matter of Maurice M. [Suzanne H.], 158 A.D.3d 689, 690–691, 68 N.Y.S.3d 740; see Matter of Kamaya S. [Zephaniah S.], 218 A.D.3d 590, 592, 192 N.Y.S.3d 580).
Here, contrary to the mothers contention, ACS established by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother neglected the child. ACSs evidence showed that the mothers untreated mental illness caused the child to be placed at imminent risk of harm, including an incident where the mothers erratic behavior in the presence of the child resulted in a three-week involuntary hospitalization (see Matter of Hanah A. [Kristy M.], 194 A.D.3d 922, 923, 147 N.Y.S.3d 685). The mother continued to display erratic and paranoid behavior after her hospitalization, including during supervised visits, and also continued to lack insight into her ongoing and untreated mental illness (see Matter of Precise M. [Tawana M.], 215 A.D.3d 680, 681, 186 N.Y.S.3d 346; Matter of Khaleef M.S.-P. [Khaleeda M.S.], 203 A.D.3d at 1161, 165 N.Y.S.3d 130; Matter of Christian G. [Alexis G.], 192 A.D.3d 1027, 1029, 144 N.Y.S.3d 447; Matter of Joseph L. [Cyanne W.], 168 A.D.3d 1055, 1056, 93 N.Y.S.3d 113).
Further, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the Family Courts determination that the child would be at imminent risk if returned to the mothers care during the pendency of the proceeding (see Matter of Daniella G. [Margarita K.], 206 A.D.3d 730, 731–732, 167 N.Y.S.3d 815; Matter of Solai J. [Kadesha J.], 190 A.D.3d 973, 974, 136 N.Y.S.3d 895; Matter of Gavin G. [Carla G.], 165 A.D.3d 1258, 1259, 87 N.Y.S.3d 595). Accordingly, the court properly denied the mothers application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 for the return of the child to her care during the pendency of the proceeding.
The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit.
DILLON, J.P., DOWLING, TAYLOR and VENTURA, JJ., concur.