Opinion
CAF 02-00290
December 30, 2002.
Appeal from an order of Family Court, Erie County (Rosa, J.), entered December 24, 2001, which adjudicated respondents' son a neglected child and placed him in the custody of petitioner for 12 months.
DAVID J. PAJAK, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., PINE, WISNER, KEHOE, AND BURNS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the order insofar as it concerns placement be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed and the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
In this proceeding brought pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, respondent Jennifer K. (mother) appeals from two orders of Family Court, the first adjudicating her infant son a neglected child and placing him in the custody of petitioner for 12 months, and the second an order of protection ordering both the mother and respondent father (father) to stay away from the child except for supervised visitation and to refrain from offensive conduct toward the child and each other. We reject the contention of the mother that the record contains insufficient proof that she placed the child at imminent risk of harm. The exposure of the child to domestic violence between the parents may form the basis for a finding of neglect ( see Matter of Francis S., 296 A.D.2d 507; Matter of Larenzo SS., 289 A.D.2d 880, 882; Matter of Kathleen GG. v. Kenneth II., 254 A.D.2d 538, 540). Here, following the prior incidents of domestic violence, the mother failed to follow through in obtaining a permanent order of protection and did not seek refuge for herself or the child, but rather continued to see the father and arrange for the child to spend time with him. Following the most recent incidents of violence, the mother again failed to seek the aid of authorities. The day after those incidents, she met with the father for lunch in the company of the child. When interviewed the following day, the mother declined the caseworker's offer to call the police. Even after the filing of this petition, the mother continued to believe that neither she nor the child was in need of protection from the child's abusive father, thereby demonstrating a lack of understanding concerning the impact or potential impact of domestic violence on the child. We thus conclude that the evidence is sufficient to establish that the child was neglected by the mother ( see Francis S., 296 A.D.2d at 508; Matter of James MM. v. June OO., 294 A.D.2d 630, 631-632; Matter of Carlos M., 293 A.D.2d 617, 619; Matter of Athena M., 253 A.D.2d 669; Matter of Lonell J., Jr., 242 A.D.2d 58, 61-63; see also Kathleen GG., 254 A.D.2d at 540).
The court did not err in receiving a certain document in evidence as a "report filed with the statewide central register of child abuse and maltreatment by a person or official required to do so pursuant to" law (Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [v]; see generally Matter of Brandon OO., 289 A.D.2d 721; Matter of Shawn P., 266 A.D.2d 907, 908, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 760). In any event, we would conclude that any error in admitting the document is harmless. It does not appear from the record that the court relied on the document, and the other evidence adduced at the hearing supports the court's determination ( see Matter of Sherri M.K., 292 A.D.2d 868, 869; Matter of Barone v. Milks, 289 A.D.2d 931, 932; Matter of Liza C. v. Noel C., 207 A.D.2d 974).
Finally, we conclude that the challenge to the disposition and the appeal from the order of protection are moot, inasmuch as that part of the order placing the child in the custody of petitioner and the order of protection have by their terms expired ( see Matter of Stephani FF., 296 A.D.2d 606; Matter of Joshua A., 294 A.D.2d 950; Matter of Alexzander B., 287 A.D.2d 820, 821).