| Matter of Pearl M. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07368 [44 AD3d 348] |
| October 4, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Pearl M. and Another, Children Alleged to beNeglected and/or Abused. Evelyn A. et al., Appellants; Commissioner of the Administration forChildren's Services of the City of New York, Respondent. |
—[*1] Lisa H. Blitman, New York, for Jesse M., appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (John Hogrogian of counsel), forrespondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Lisa B. Freedman of counsel), LawGuardian.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or aboutMay 11, 2005, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondents mother and fatherneglected the subject children and that respondent father sexually abused Pearl M. andderivatively abused Evan M., placed the subject children in the custody of petitionerAdministration for Children's Services for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed insofaras it brings up for review the fact-finding determination, and the appeal otherwise dismissed asmoot, without costs.
The appeal from the dispositional order is moot. The terms of the order have expired andsubsequent orders terminating respondents' parental rights freeing the children for adoption havebeen entered (Matter of Vivian OO.,34 AD3d 1084 [2006]; Matter of Clifford J., 238 AD2d 244 [1997]). Were we toreview the merits, we would find that a preponderance of the evidence supported thedetermination that it was not in the best interests of the children to be returned to their parents.
The finding of neglect against respondent mother was supported by a preponderance of theevidence, including testimony and documentary proof establishing that she misused alcohol,failed to comply with a treatment program, and caused fires in the home, including one while thechildren were present (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). The finding of neglect againstrespondent father was established by evidence that he knew of the mother's alcohol abuse and[*2]other dangerous tendencies, but failed to take steps to protectthe children (see Matter of Kimberly M., 262 AD2d 237 [1999]).
The finding that the father sexually abused his daughter and derivatively abused his son wasalso supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 1012 [e] [iii]; §1046 [b] [i]). The daughter's out-of-court statements were corroborated by a child sexual abuseexpert, who, after evaluating the child over several sessions, concluded that she had been abused.Such corroboration included assessing the child's demeanor and language and the consistency ofher statements over time, as well the child's demonstrations of the father's actions with ananatomically correct doll (Matter of Jaclyn P., 86 NY2d 875 [1995], cert denied516 US 1093 [1996]; Matter of J.S., 215 AD2d 213 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d706 [1995]). Contrary to the father's contentions, he received adequate notice of the chargesagainst him and his counsel was not curtailed during the cross-examination of petitioner's keywitness.
We have considered respondents' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.