Opinion
CAF 02-00192
May 2, 2003.
Appeal from an order of Family Court, Oneida County (Griffith, J.), entered October 3, 2001, which, inter alia, adjudicated respondent's child to be neglected.
V. MICHAEL LICCIONE, WHITESBORO, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
TRACY L. PUGLIESE, UTICA, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, WISNER, BURNS, AND LAWTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
Respondent appeals from an order that adjudicated her daughter to be neglected based on a finding of educational neglect. "Proof that a minor child is not attending a public or parochial school in the district where the parents reside makes out a prima facie case of educational neglect" ( Matter of Christa H., 127 A.D.2d 997, 997; see Matter of Chad V., 265 A.D.2d 607, 608, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 757, 758). The contention of respondent that her daughter was too ill to attend school is not supported by the record. Moreover, respondent refused to communicate with the Rome City School District after February 2000 to arrange an adequate alternative education for her daughter. We conclude that petitioner met its burden of establishing educational neglect by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Chad V., 265 A.D.2d 608). Under the circumstances of this case, we further conclude that Family Court did not abuse its discretion in permitting respondent to appear pro se at the fact-finding hearing and in denying respondent's request for an adjournment for the appointment of new assigned counsel to be available in the courtroom to assist respondent ( see Matter of Petkovsek v. Snyder, 251 A.D.2d 1088, 1089, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 942).