Opinion
183 CAF 19-01743
03-18-2022
IN THE MATTER OF JULIETTE R. ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; JORDAN R.T., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)
WILLIAM D. BRODERICK, JR., ELMA, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. REBECCA HOFFMAN, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. AUDREY ROSE HERMAN, BUFFALO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
WILLIAM D. BRODERICK, JR., ELMA, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
REBECCA HOFFMAN, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
AUDREY ROSE HERMAN, BUFFALO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, NEMOYER, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Lisa Bloch Rodwin, J.), entered September 6, 2019 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, inter alia, placed respondent under the supervision of petitioner for a period of one year.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal insofar as it concerns the disposition is unanimously dismissed and the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, respondent father appeals from an order entered after a fact-finding hearing that, inter alia, adjudicated that he neglected the subject child. In appeal No. 2, the father appeals from an order of disposition that, among other things, placed the father under the supervision of petitioner for one year and released the child to the custody of non-respondent mother.
As an initial matter, the father's appeal from the order in appeal No. 1 must be dismissed inasmuch as the appeal from the dispositional order in appeal No. 2 brings up for review the propriety of the fact-finding order in appeal No. 1 (see Matter of Lil B. J.-Z. [Jessica N.J.] [appeal No. 2], 194 A.D.3d 1413, 1413-1414 [4th Dept 2021]; Matter of Jaime D. [James N.] [appeal No. 2], 170 A.D.3d 1524, 1525 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 901 [2019]). Further, the father's appeal from the order in appeal No. 2 insofar as it concerns the disposition must be dismissed as moot because that part of the order has expired by its terms (see Lil B. J.-Z., 194 A.D.3d at 1414; Jaime D., 170 A.D.3d at 1525; Matter of Gabriella G. [Jeannine G.], 104 A.D.3d 1136, 1136 [4th Dept 2013]). The father "may nevertheless challenge the underlying neglect adjudication because it constitutes a permanent stigma to a parent and may, in future proceedings, affect a parent's status" (Jamie D., 170 A.D.3d at 1525 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Contrary to the father's contention with respect to the neglect adjudication, we conclude that petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the child's physical, mental or emotional condition had been or was "in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of [the father] . . . to exercise a minimum degree of care" (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; see generally Matter of Afton C. [James C.], 17 N.Y.3d 1, 9 [2011]; Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357, 369 [2004]). Petitioner established that the father "made repeated unfounded allegations of sexual [and physical] abuse . . ., necessitating that the child[ ] undergo medical examinations and interviews regarding intimate issues" (Matter of Tyler W. [Janice B.], 149 A.D.3d 968, 969 [2d Dept 2017]; see Matter of Leilani D. [Linsford D.], 190 A.D.3d 478, 478 [1st Dept 2021]; Matter of Elizabeth W. [Theresa W.], 74 A.D.3d 1787, 1788 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 704 [2011]; Matter of Morgan P., 60 A.D.3d 1362, 1362 [4th Dept 2009]) and that the father inappropriately questioned the child about the alleged abuse (see Tyler W., 149 A.D.3d at 969).