Opinion
2019–02859 2019–02860 Docket Nos. N–19176–18, N–19177–18, N–19178–18
03-04-2020
In the MATTER OF LEO A. G.-H.B. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; v. Natalie G. (Anonymous), Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Gita G. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; v. Natalie G. (Anonymous), Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Adele G. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; v. Natalie G. (Anonymous), Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3)
David Laniado, Cedarhurst, NY, for appellant. James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Melanie T. West and Jonathan A. Popolow of counsel), for respondent. Deana Balahtsis, New York, NY, attorney for the children Adele G. and Gita G.
David Laniado, Cedarhurst, NY, for appellant.
James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Melanie T. West and Jonathan A. Popolow of counsel), for respondent.
Deana Balahtsis, New York, NY, attorney for the children Adele G. and Gita G.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LASALLE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Queens County (Mildred T. Negron, J.), dated February 1, 2019, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated February 26, 2019. The order of fact-finding, after a hearing, found that the mother neglected the child Leo A. G.-H. B. and derivatively neglected the children Gita G. and Adele G. The order of disposition, upon the order of fact-finding and after a dispositional hearing, inter alia, placed the mother under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services, upon certain terms and conditions, until August 26, 2019.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the mother under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services, upon certain terms and conditions, until August 26, 2019, 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 petitioner commenced these proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 alleging that the mother neglected the child Leo A. G.-H. B (hereinafter Leo) by failing to provide him with adequate guardianship and supervision, and derivatively neglected the children Gita G. and Adele G. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the mother neglected the children as alleged in the petitions. After a dispositional hearing, the court, inter alia, released the children to the custody of the mother and placed the mother under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services, upon certain terms and conditions, until August 26, 2019. The mother appeals.
The record supports the Family Court's resolution of credibility issues (see Matter of Olivia R. [Kaila G.], 138 A.D.3d 1122, 1123, 30 N.Y.S.3d 296 ). The evidence at the fact-finding hearing established that one morning while the mother was driving the children to their Manhattan school from Queens, she became angry with Leo, threw his cell phone out the window, stopped the car one block from an entrance ramp to the Queensboro Bridge, and ordered the child out of the car. After Leo exited the car, the mother drove away and brought the other two children to their school in Manhattan. Leo was 11 years old and took medication for ADHD. He had never taken the subway by himself before and was not familiar with the area of Queens where the mother left him. He did not know his address, his mother's phone number, or the address or phone number of his school. Leo wandered for several blocks before two bystanders became concerned and called the police. Meanwhile, after bringing the other two children to school, the mother returned to the area where she had ordered Leo out of the car, but could not find him. She returned home without contacting the police or taking further steps to ensure the child's safety. Four hours after the initial incident, the police contacted the mother and informed her that Leo was in their care. The Family Court's finding that the mother neglected Leo by failing to provide proper supervision and guardianship, leading to imminent danger of the child's mental, emotional, or physical well-being was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[f][i], 1046[b][i] ; Matter of Olivia R. [Kaila G.], 138 A.D.3d at 1123, 30 N.Y.S.3d 296 ; Matter of Kurt K. [Karen K.], 133 A.D.3d 755, 19 N.Y.S.3d 183 ; Matter of Sasha B. [Erica B.], 73 A.D.3d 587, 587–588, 905 N.Y.S.2d 563 ; Matter of Debraun M., 34 A.D.3d 587, 826 N.Y.S.2d 76 ).
Furthermore, the mother's conduct toward Leo indicated a fundamental defect in her understanding of the duties of parenthood and demonstrated such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm to the other two children as to support the finding of derivative neglect as to them (see Matter of Justine N. [Patricia M.], 136 A.D.3d 452, 25 N.Y.S.3d 147 ; Matter of Amondie T. [Karen S.], 107 A.D.3d 498, 499, 968 N.Y.S.2d 20 ; Matter of Sophia P., 66 A.D.3d 908, 909, 886 N.Y.S.2d 637 ).
The mother's contention that the Family Court should have dismissed the petitions pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051(c), raised for the first time on appeal, is not properly before this Court (see Matter of Elisa V. [Hung V.], 159 A.D.3d 827, 829, 71 N.Y.S.3d 626 ; Matter of Eunice D. [James F.D.], 111 A.D.3d 627, 629, 975 N.Y.S.2d 73 ).
AUSTIN, J.P., MALTESE, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.