| Matter of Andrew Y. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08242 [44 AD3d 1063] |
| October 30, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Andrew Y. Dutchess County Department of SocialServices, Respondent; Terry L.Y., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Tori P.Dutchess County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Terry L.Y., Appellant. (ProceedingNo. 2.) |
—[*1] Ronald L. Wozniak, County Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Richard A. Ott of counsel), forrespondent. Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Arza Feldman of counsel), Law Guardian for the childAndrew Y.
In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, TerryL.Y., appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, DutchessCounty (Forman, J.), entered April 20, 2006, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings,found that he had neglected the subject children and, inter alia, placed him under the supervisionof the Dutchess County Department of Social Services for a period of up to 12 months, effectiveMarch 17, 2006, and (2) an order of protection of the same court entered April 20, 2006, which,among other things, directed him to stay away from the children, to remain in effect until July 13,2020, with respect to the child Andrew Y., and until November 10, 2018, with respect to thechild Tori P.[*2]
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order offact-finding and disposition as placed the appellant under the supervision of the Dutchess CountyDepartment of Social Services for a period of up to 12 months is dismissed as academic, withoutcosts or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, withoutcosts or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of protection is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisionsthereof directing that the order of protection remain in effect until July 13, 2020, with respect tothe child Andrew Y., and until November 10, 2018, with respect to the child Tori P., andsubstituting therefor a provision directing that the order of protection remain in effect throughMarch 16, 2007; as so modified, the order of protection is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
The dispositional portion of the order of fact-finding and disposition which is the subject ofthis appeal has expired by its own terms. Therefore, the appeal from so much of that order asplaced the appellant under the supervision of the Dutchess County Department of Social Servicesfor a period of up to 12 months must be dismissed (see Matter of Alan B., 267 AD2d 306[1999]).
Review of the finding of neglect, however, is not academic since a finding of neglectconstitutes a "permanent and significant stigma," and potential future consequences may flowfrom it (Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Kim G., 240 AD2d 664, 665 [1997];see Matter of Alan B., 267 AD2d 306 [1999]). The appellant is the biological father ofAndrew Y., and although he was not the biological father of Tori. P., he was a "person legallyresponsible" for her under Family Court Act article 10 (see Family Ct Act § 1012[g]; Matter of Johnnie S., 272 AD2d 472 [2000]). The evidence supports thedetermination of the Family Court that the appellant neglected both Andrew Y. and Tori P. inthat he committed an act of domestic violence against Andrew Y.'s mother in their presence, andplaced them at a substantial risk of harm (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B];Matter of Richard T., 12 AD3d 986 [2004]; Matter of Tiana R., 307 AD2d 1040,1041 [2003]; Matter of Zachery M., 306 AD2d 348 [2003]; Matter of Tami G.,209 AD2d 869 [1994]).
The appellant is correct that, under the plain language of Family Court Act § 1056 (1)and (4), it is only where the person is not a relative, "by blood or marriage," and is not a memberof the child's household at the time of the disposition that the duration of an order of protectionmay extend to the child's 18th birthday (see Matter of Collin H., 28 AD3d 806, 809-810[2006]). Since the appellant is Andrew Y.'s biological father, and is related to Tori P. bymarriage, the court was not authorized to extend the order of protection beyond the duration ofthe order of fact-finding and disposition, about 11 months in this case (see Family Ct Act§ 1056 [1]; Matter of Sheena D., 8 NY3d 136 [2007]; Matter of CandaceS., 38 AD3d 786, 788 [2007]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ.,concur.