Opinion
2011-11-22
In the Matter of NIVIYA K. (Anonymous).Administration for Children's Services, respondent;Alfonzo M. (Anonymous), appellant.
Robert Hausner, Mineola, N.Y., for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F.X. Hart and Marta Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Robert Hausner, Mineola, N.Y., for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F.X. Hart and Marta Ross of counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara Steckler and Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the child.DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated March 21, 2011, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated February 4, 2011, made after a hearing, finding that he neglected the subject child, placed the subject child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services until the completion of the first subsequent permanency hearing, held on July 18, 2011. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the subject child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services until the completion of the first subsequent permanency hearing, held on July 18, 2011, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the subject child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services until the completion of the first subsequent permanency hearing, held on July 18, 2011, must be dismissed as academic, as the period of placement has already expired ( see Matter of Ifeiye O., 53 A.D.3d 501, 861 N.Y.S.2d 133). However, the adjudication of neglect constitutes a permanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect the father's status in future proceedings. Therefore, the appeal from the portion of the order of disposition which brings up for review the finding of neglect is not academic ( id.).
The Family Court's determination that the father neglected his infant daughter was supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct. Act § 1012 [f][i][B]; § 1046[b][i] ). The evidence established, inter alia, that the father knew of the mother's drug use and failed to exercise a minimum degree of care to ensure that the mother did not abuse drugs during her pregnancy ( see Matter of Carlena B., 61 A.D.3d 752, 877 N.Y.S.2d 197; Matter of K. Children, 253 A.D.2d 764, 677 N.Y.S.2d 379; cf. Matter of Cantina B., 26 A.D.3d 327, 809 N.Y.S.2d 539). Accordingly, the Family Court properly determined that the father neglected the child.