On March 21, 2025, the Administration for Children's Services filed an Article 10 petition against the Respondent Father, K.H.S. on behalf of the subject children, K.P.H. (hereinafter "K.P.") and K.D.H.J. (hereinafter "K.J.") On March 21, 2025, Hon. Yael Wilkofsky remanded the subject children to the Commissioner of ACS.

On July 29, 2025, retained counsel for the Respondent Father filed a motion seeking a 1028 hearing for the release of the children to his care. On August 4, 2025, this Court commenced a 1028 hearing and continued August 5, 2025, August 7, 2025, August 13, 2025, August 14, 2025, August 21, 2025, September 4, 2025, September 11, 2025, and September 15, 2025. On September 15, 2025, over the objection of the AFC, this Court ordered one overnight visit between the children and the Respondent before the next scheduled court date. On September 15, 2025, the Attorney for the Child filed a notice of appeal, and the order was stayed. The Respondent's retained attorney did not participate in the appeal.

On September 23, 2025, retained counsel for Mr. H. submitted a notice of a consent to change attorney. Mr. H was subsequently assigned an attorney from the 18-B panel. On October 21, 2025, counsel for Mr. H. renewed the application for an overnight visit. This Court again issued an order for an overnight visit between Mr. H. and the children, however, the Attorney for [*2]the Children filed a notice of appeal, and the order was again stayed pending the continuation of the 1028 hearing.

The 1028 hearing resumed on October 29, 2025 to allow Mr. H.'s assigned counsel an opportunity to obtain the all the necessary transcripts and records and continued on October 30, 2025, November 3, 2025, November 5, 2025, November 17, 2025, and concluded on November 19, 2025.

In evidence are the Respondent's certificate of completion of an anger management program and a parenting program, three (3) Children's Aid reports dated November 7, 2025, October 20, 2025, August 7, 2025, July 8, 2025, a report from the Realization Center dated August 4, 2025, two (2) Addie Mae Collins Community Service Letters dated April 15, 2025 and April 16, 2025, Safe Horizon notes from March 31, 2025, and lastly, a text message exchange between the Respondent Father, the subject child, K.P., and the adult sibling, Ms. C. from the alleged March 6, 2025 incident. CPS Leslie Dunn, CP Danielle Cheeseboro, Respondent Father, K.H.S., and adult siblings Ms. C. and Mr. C. testified at the 1028 hearing. The Court finds CPS Leslie Dunn and CP Danielle Cheeseboro's testimony to be credible and finds Mr. H., Ms. C. and Mr. C.'s testimony to be partially credible and self-serving at times. At numerous points, this Court noted numerous contradictions between the parties' testimony.

CPS Leslie Dunn credibly testified to her involvement and investigation regarding the family which began on March 6, 2025. The family became known to her following a court ordered investigation relating to a family court proceeding involving the Respondent Father and the subject children's adult sibling, Ms. C. According to CPS Dunn, Ms. C. had filed for custody of the subject children alleging that the Respondent had been engaged in the sale of the drugs and that he had displayed aggression towards her on other occasions.

Mr. H., Ms. C., and Mr. C. provided three separate accounts of the family dynamics and, importantly, what occurred on March 6, 2025. CPS Dunn testified to the subject children's account. Somewhere in between the lines of testimony, lies the truth, but this Court may never know the full truth. There were inconsistencies amongst all accounts, but all parties concede that on March 6, 2025, a dispute arose between Ms. C. and Mr. H. regarding a light being turned on.

Mr. H. testified that on that day, he was getting the children ready for bed, turned the lights off, and watched TV with the children. At approximately 6:00 or 7:00 P.M., Ms. entered the home and turned the lights on. He and Ms. C. went back and forth turning the lights on and off before he took a chair to take the lightbulb out. He then told the children to go into their bedroom. Mr. H. stated that the children had everything they needed in the bedroom including a bed, a chair, TV, a closet, windows, a bathroom, and clothes. He checked with the children throughout the night if they needed food from the kitchen or if they had to use the bathroom. At around 11:00 P.M., he stated everyone had fallen asleep. At approximately 6:30 A.M., Mr. H. woke the children up and got them ready for school. When they left the room, Ms. C. had been sleeping on the couch in the living room.

K.P. reported to CPS Dunn that she observed her father cursing at her sister, Ms. C., when her father swung a chair during the altercation. K.P. reported that her father made them go into his room and that she texted her sister that she was scared and wanted to go to her. According to K.P., she was locked in the room until the next morning.

K.J. reported to CPS Dunn that he observed his father and Ms. C. arguing about a light and that his father was trying to take down the light. He stated that his father started calling Ms. C. names and made the children go into their rooms and would not allow them to talk to or be [*3]with his sister. K.J. further stated that he was not allowed to come out of their bedroom and stayed in their bedroom crying the whole night.

Ms. C. testified that she went inside the home and turned on the lights to the dining room area and Mr. H. subsequently turned the lights off. This went on a few more times with the children joining in and turning the lights on and off. Mr. H. then took the children and locked them in her mother's room for approximately 13 hours. She heard K.J. screaming and crying and then received a text from K.P. to call the cops because she didn't believe it was "good treatment." Ms. C. did testify that the bathroom in the room did have a running toilet and sink.

Mr. C. testified that on that day, the lights were on in the living room where Mr. H. and the children were watching television. Ms. C. arrived home and turned on the dining room light and Mr. H. proceeded to turn off the light. Mr. C. testified that the back and forth with the lights did not escalate and the children did join in and thought it was funny. Mr. H. tried to unscrew the light but was unsuccessful. Mr. H. then took the children in the bedroom. Mr. C. testified that K.J. was crying that he did not want to go to bed early and was being stubborn because "he's little." Mr. C. did not hear K.P. crying but stated that after K.J. continued crying, Mr. H. allowed K.J. to come out of the room to hug Ms. for about two minutes.

Mr. C. and Ms. C. testified to their concerns regarding Mr. H.'s alleged drug involvement. Ms. C. recalled observing Mr. H. meeting "clients" in the hallway of their building for approximately two to three seconds and then go right back inside the house. She alluded to exchanges being very quick and occurring daily, if not, every other day but denied ever seeing any exchanges or transactions. She further noted that on two separate occasions, two individuals, a man and a woman unknown to her, were in the home at the same time as her and the children. Mr. C. also noted seeing people around the home at all hours of the day. Both Mr. C. and Ms. C. spoke about seeing powder, rocks, razor blades, and Ziploc bags in their mother's bathroom belonging to Mr. H.. Notably, all parties testified that everyone had access to this bathroom including Ms. C. and Mr. C.

CPS Dunn testified that at the start of the case, she conducted a home visit at the case address and observed a rock substance, a metrocard and a razor blade in Mr. H.'s bathroom. She further observed a plate with a brown substance, clear plastic baggies, and black bottles with labels. When CPS Dunn confronted Mr. H. regarding the items found in his bathroom, Mr. H. denied possessing the items and stated that he had been out of the house for a few days and the items may have been planted. No additional action was taken regarding these items. CP Cheeseboro testified that since her assignment to this case, she has done monthly visits to Mr. H.'s new residence and has not observed any issues or concerns with the home. She further reported that she has not observed any drug paraphernalia or smelled any substance being used in the home. His home is appropriate, with food and furniture for the children.

This Court will note that the updated court report from November 7, 2025 from the foster care agency did have maintenance issues with the foster home specifically, peeling paint and presence of mold. Additionally, there are concerns that Ms. C. is potentially facing eviction with the potential of the children being without a home.

CPS Cheeseboro further testified that Mr. H. had completed his service plan since July 2025 including a parenting course, an anger management course, and an outpatient drug treatment program. Mr. H. has submitted to more than five agency referred drug screens which were negative and has tested negative for all substances in his drug treatment program. She noted that Mr. H. has been appropriate and attentive during his visits and has not posed any issue [*4]or concern. Importantly, the visits have been going well with K.J. most recently reporting not wanting to leave the visits.

When discussing what he's learned, Mr. H. struggled a bit to recount appropriate coping strategies that he learned noting only that it was a "learning experience of what people experience in their life" and that he's learned to avoid confrontation and not get angry. The Court does note that Mr. H. began this 1028 hearing with an outburst in court which he subsequently apologized for. Since that time, he has maintained himself in a calm and composed manner despite the challenges presented during this case.

All parties' credibility were placed at issue which did raise a concern for this Court. There were conflicting reports regarding Mr. H.'s actual involvement with the children, who resided in the home, and the future of the home that all the parties resided in. Mr. C. testified that Mr. H. was involved in pick up and drop off at school, however, upon hearing that his sister testified that Mr. H. was rarely involved, Mr. C. changed his testimony and agreed with Ms. C. A letter from K.J.'s school dated April 2025 shows that Mr. H. was very involved in the child's school activities and the community.

The question posed before this Court is whether Mr. H. poses an imminent risk to the children's life, health, and overall well-being. Should Mr. H. pose an imminent risk to the children, this Court would then determine whether the trauma of harm outweighs the trauma of removal and whether there are any orders that can mitigate that risk of harm. This Court finds that the Petitioner and the Attorney for the Children have failed to meet their burden.

The Court does have concerns regarding what was observed in Mr. H.'s bathroom. However, there was no evidence before this Court to substantiate the allegations that Mr. H. was actively engaged in drug sale activity. Both Mr. C. and Ms. C. testified to random individuals greeting Mr. H. in the hallway but never witnessed any transactions or exchanges. No individual was reported to have harmed the children and there was no evidence that Mr. H. knew these people as "clients" nor was there evidence that these were not mere friends of Mr. H.'s. Any testimony regarding Mr. H.'s alleged drug selling is speculation at best. Notably, no evidence was elicited about prior ACS history regarding Mr. H. and any potential drug use nor was there any additional information placed on the record about addressing any concerns with Mr. H. selling drugs aside from engagement in a drug treatment program and negative drug testing.

It is irrefutable that an altercation occurred between Ms. C. and Mr. H. in the presence of the children involving turning a light on and off. It is also irrefutable that the children were in bedroom for at least twelve (12) hours. Both children were interviewed at the Children's Advocacy Center and their stories cross-corroborated that they observed Ms. C. and Mr. H. argue, Mr. H. using profanity against Ms. C., and that Mr. H. used a chair to try and unscrew the lightbulb. The children cross-corroborated that their father told them to go into their mother's room and that they were both crying and scared.

This Court does not credit Mr. H.'s testimony that the children remained in their bedroom and that there were no issues throughout the night. The event that took place deeply affected the children so much so that this Court believes that there remains unresolved trauma from the incident. The children are very aware of the tension between Mr. H. and their siblings, especially since their mother that they share with Ms. C. and Mr. C. recently passed away. Nor does this Court wholly credit 's account as there was the discrepancy between her and Mr. C.'s account that K.J. was allowed to leave the room to hug Ms. C.

However, there was no indication that the children were deprived of using the bathroom. [*5]Also, while the children and Mr. H. were not observed to leave the room the entire night, there was no indication that the children were deprived of food. Neither child indicated that they were denied food or use of the bathroom. Neither child indicated that they were physically harmed by being in the room. Neither child indicated that they were hungry. Furthermore, Mr. H. was present in the room during the time frame. There was no indication that Mr. H. physically harmed the children in the room, berated the children in the room, denied the children of any of their needs, or failed to meet their needs.

The Court may hypothesize as to 's motive for keeping the children in her care regarding retaining succession rights to her mother's home as alluded to by Respondent's counsel. The Court may hypothesize that Mr. H. was an absent father prior to the children's mother's death as alluded to by the Attorney for the Children. This Court cannot ascertain the veracity nor concern itself too much with either theory as its only concern is the safety and well-being of these children and whether Mr. H. poses an imminent risk to the children. Imminent risk is clearly delineated in the seminal case Nicholson v. Scopetta, as serious harm or potential harm to the child, not just what might be deemed undesirable parental behavior 3 NY3d 357 at 369. Such danger must be "near or impending, not merely possible. See id.

What occurred on March 6, 2025 appears to this Court as a familial dispute arising out of ongoing tension between Mr. H. and Ms. C. Unfortunately, the children at the subject of these proceedings, were placed in the unenviable position of being in the middle of the adults' dispute. Neither Mr. H. nor Ms. C. were appropriate in the situation and a minor dispute was heightened by removing the children from the situation.

This Court does not condone Mr. H.'s actions in anyway, but the children were not deprived of their needs; what they were deprived of was access to Ms.C. In fact, that may have been what the children have been afraid of is loss of contact with their sister. The notes from the Child Advocacy Center highlight K.P.'s follow up where she identified her father and her sister as her primary support system. She stated that when she's sad, her sister (Ms. C.) will hug her and tell her she will be okay. She followed this up with stated that her father sometimes gives her hugs but sometimes tells her to stop crying which isn't helpful. She noted that she would like her father to hug her like her sister. It appears that K.P. is seeking a specific type of support from her father that she is getting from Ms. C. It is this Court's belief that there may be a disconnect in communication and support between Mr. H. and the children which may need to be addressed.

Mr. H. is the only remaining parent of both children. He has an absolute right to the children as their father. He also has a right to choose who his children may interact with as their parent. However, absent a safety concern, which this Court has not heard any of, it would be in the best interests of the children to maintain a relationship and continue the same communication and contact they had with their siblings prior to the passing of their mother. It is undeniable that there is a custody issue at play here that has arisen out of the unfortunate passing of the children's mother. While this Court is issuing this ruling, both Mr. H. and Ms. C. should be aware that absent a resolution on the custody matter, this information will likely be the subject of trial on that matter. And while some of the information brought out on this matter was not relevant to the neglect, it will be relevant for the custody proceeding.

The Court lauds Mr. H.'s engagement in services but does find that Mr. H. would benefit from continued individual therapy with a grief counseling component. While completion is great progress, Mr. H. would benefit from learning how to better understand his actions and learn coping strategies to address his anger. The Court also finds that family therapy for the family, [*6]with or without, may be helpful to alleviate the tension and assist Mr. H. as he navigates being a single parent.

Therefore, the Court is granting Mr. H.'s 1028 application and temporarily releasing the children to his care on the following conditions:

- Mr. H. to comply with ACS supervision including announced and unannounced visits;

- Mr. H. to produce the children for ACS;

- Mr. H. is to keep ACS apprised of any changes in address and to provide 24 hour notice of any address change;

- Mr. H. to comply with random drug screens and test negative for all negative substances. Absent a medical emergency, a missed drug screen will be considered positive;

- Mr. H. is to continue to engage in services including but not limited to individual therapy and comply with any recommendations therefrom;

- A copy of the petition and this decision is to be provided to Mr. H.'s providers;

- Mr. H. is to comply with a referral for PPRS;

- Mr. H. is to comply with a referral for family therapy;

- Mr. H. is to ensure the children attend all their services and comply with any recommendations;

- Mr. H. is to comply with all reasonable recommendations on notice to counsel;

- Mr. H. is to sign all necessary HIPAAs for himself and the children on notice to counsel;

Neither party is to discuss this matter with the children. Neither party may disparage the other party to the children.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court on Order to Show Cause #1.