| Matter of Daniel W. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08498 [56 AD3d 483] |
| November 5, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Daniel W., a Child Alleged to be Abused andNeglected. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Shreef W., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Shanice W., a Child Alleged to be Abused and Neglected.Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Shreef W., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)In the Matter of Ronald W., Jr., a Child Alleged to be Abused and Neglected. Administration forChildren's Services, Respondent; Shreef W., Appellant. (Proceeding No.3.) |
—[*1]
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Leonard Koerner andRonald E. Sternberg of counsel), for respondent.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Diane Pazar of counsel), attorneyfor the children Daniel W. and Shanice W.
Lance Corbin Kramer, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the child Ronald W. (no brieffiled).
In related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the fatherappeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, KingsCounty (Danoff, J.), dated July 12, 2007, which, inter alia, found that Shanice W. was aneglected child, and that Daniel W. and Ronald W. were derivatively neglected children, withinthe meaning of Family Court Act[*2]§ 1012 (f) (i) (B),placed the father under the petitioner's supervision until January 10, 2008, under certain termsand conditions, and placed the subject children in the custody of the nonparty stepmother, for aperiod of six months effective July 11, 2007.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as placedthe father under the petitioner's supervision, and placed the subject children in the custody of thenonparty stepmother 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 ordisbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as placed the fatherunder the petitioner's supervision, and placed the subject children in the custody of the nonpartystepmother, is dismissed as academic because the periods of placement have expired (see Matter of Derek P., 43 AD3d938, 938-939 [2007]; Matter of Sal D., 307 AD2d 261, 262 [2003]; Matter of H.Children, 276 AD2d 485, 486 [2000]). The adjudication of neglect, however, constitutes apermanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect the father's status in any futureproceedings. Therefore, the appeal from so much of the order as brings up for review the findingthat the father neglected the subject children is not academic (see Matter of Derek P., 43AD3d at 938-939; Matter of Sal D., 307 AD2d at 262; Matter of H. Children, 276AD2d at 486).
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court's finding that he neglected the childShanice W. by inflicting excessive corporal punishment upon her is supported by apreponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Nicholas L., 50 AD3d1141, 1142 [2008]; Matter of DerekP., 43 AD3d 938 [2007]). The evidence also was sufficient to support the Court'sderivative findings of neglect as to the children Daniel W. and Ronald W. (see Matter of Nicholas L., 50 AD3d1141, 1142 [2008]; Matter of Dareth O., 304 AD2d 667 [2003]; Matter ofDutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. v Douglas E., 191 AD2d 694 [1993]).
The father's remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or withoutmerit. Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Miller and Eng, JJ., concur.