Opinion
Submitted November 16, 1999
December 13, 1999
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated May 19, 1998, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated April 8, 1998, made after a hearing, finding that the subject child was neglected, placed him in the custody of the Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York for 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated April 8, 1998.
Johanna G. Hendrix, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant.
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath and Alan Beckoff of counsel), for respondent.
Monica Drinane, New York, N.Y. (Tracy Yosten of counsel), Law Guardian for the child.
THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the child in the custody of the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York for 12 months 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 order of disposition which is the subject of this appeal has expired by its own terms. Therefore, the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the subject child with the petitioner is dismissed as academic (see, e.g., Matter of Barbara S., 261 A.D.2d 408 [2d Dept., May 3, 1999]; Matter of Monique W. v. Kim G., 240 A.D.2d 664 ). The appellant contends that the enactment by New York State of legislation in February 1999 implementing the Federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (L 1999, Ch 7, § 12) creates an issue of such novelty as to qualify for an exception to the "mootness" doctrine (see, e.g., Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707 ). We disagree. Under the prior legislation (Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a]), the agency had the right to petition for the termination of parental rights where a child had been in the care of the agency for 12 months and the parent had not maintained adequate contact and/or planned for the child's return. Accordingly, even before implementation of the Federal Act, a 12-month placement order had potentially serious consequences for the parent.
Review of the finding of neglect, however, is not academic since a finding of neglect constitutes a "permanent and significant stigma", and potential future consequences may flow from it (see, e.g., Matter of Monique W. v. Kim G., supra; Matter of Keith C., 226 A.D.2d 369 ). The Family Court's determination in this case was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct Act 1046[b][i]). The findings of the hearing court concerning issues of credibility must be accorded great deference (see, Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776, 777 ). The evidence supported the determination that the mother left the then six-year-old child either home alone or with inappropriate guardians for protracted periods of time on more than one occasion, with the result that the child's physical, mental, or emotional condition was in imminent danger of becoming impaired due to his mother's "pattern of inattention to the child' s need for a safe environment" (see, Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i][B];Matter of Ishmael D., 202 A.D.2d 1030 ;Matter of Eric M., 90 A.D.2d 717 ; see also, Matter of Jerry M., 78 Misc.2d 407 ; Besharov, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, Family Ct Act § 1012 at 347, 362-369). In addition, the child had 32 unexplained absences from school from September through December of 1997 (see, Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i][A]; Matter of Jovann B., 153 A.D.2d 858 ; see also, Matter of Kyle T., 255 A.D.2d 945 ; Matter of Michael W., 123 A.D.2d 874 ).
SULLIVAN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, FEUERSTEIN, and SMITH, JJ., concur.