Opinion
2012-10-16
In re KIERA R., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Kinyetta R., Respondent–Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Todd D. Kadish, Brooklyn, for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Karen M. Griffin of counsel), for respondent.
Todd D. Kadish, Brooklyn, for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Karen M. Griffin of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Marcia Egger of counsel), attorney for the child.
TOM, J.P., MAZZARELLI, ANDRIAS, DeGRASSE, ROMÁN, JJ.
Order of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.F.C.), entered on or about November 30, 2010, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent mother neglected the subject child, placed the subject child in the custody of the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services, unanimously affirmed, without costs, as to the fact-finding, and the appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed, without costs, as moot.
The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, which established that respondent neglected the subject child by failing to provide her with proper supervision and guardianship. The child frequently left respondent's home for days at a time and respondent failed to provide alternate living arrangements, forcing the child, for at least part of the time, to live on the streets (Family Ct. Act § 1012[f][i] ). Further, the evidence showed that respondent failed to seek professional counseling or therapy for the child, whose behavior was uncontrollable, even though such counseling had been recommended by medical professionals ( see e.g. Matter of Perry S. v. Cynthia S., 22 A.D.3d 234, 235, 802 N.Y.S.2d 115 [1st Dept. 2005];Matter of Deanna R.G., 83 A.D.3d 1064, 921 N.Y.S.2d 557 [2d Dept. 2011] ).
Respondent did not object to the court's entry of a dispositional order without a formal dispositional hearing, and her present objection is, therefore, unpreserved ( see Matter of Crystal P., 93 A.D.3d 576, 940 N.Y.S.2d 489 [1st Dept. 2012] ). In any event, given that a final discharge of the instant case became effective on March 7, 2012, the child's 18th birthday, the appeal from the dispositional order is moot ( see e.g., Matter of Brianna R. (Marisol G.), 78 A.D.3d 437, 439, 910 N.Y.S.2d 71 [1st Dept. 2010],lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 702, 2011 WL 135698 [2011] ).