| Matter of Neithan CC. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09139 [56 AD3d 1000] |
| November 20, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Neithan CC., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Joseph DD.,Appellant. |
—[*1] John Dee, Clinton County Department of Social Services, Plattsburgh, for respondent. David P. Dylis, Law Guardian, Ballston Spa.
Lahtinen, J. Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lawliss, J.),entered January 2, 2008, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant toFamily Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate Neithan CC. to be a neglected child, and issued an orderof protection.
Petitioner commenced this neglect proceeding seeking to prohibit respondent (a registeredlevel three sex offender who had previously sexually abused a young child) from having contactwith the seven-year-old child of his live-in girlfriend. Family Court, after a hearing, granted thepetition and respondent now appeals.
Initially, we reject respondent's contention that petitioner failed to establish that it made"every reasonable effort" pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1041 (b) to serve the child'sbiological father, who had moved out of state and petitioner had difficulty locating. The recordsupports Family Court's conclusion, made after a discussion of the efforts made by petitioner(see Matter of Neithan AA, 18 Misc 3d 1116[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52512[U], *2-4[2007]), that those efforts satisfied the statutory requirement of Family Ct Act § 1041 (b).Moreover, we discern no reason in this record why an alleged failure to adequately notify thefather would serve as a ground on appeal to reverse the neglect determination regardingrespondent (see Family Ct Act § 1042).
Nor do we find merit in respondent's argument that neglect was not established. Respondenthad, in 1998, repeatedly subjected a former girlfriend's child to sexual abuse, which resulted in afelony conviction and a determination that he was a level three sex offender. Although hereportedly participated in sex offender treatment when incarcerated and acknowledged that aspart of that treatment he was instructed not to have unsupervised contact with children and toavoid alcohol, he admitted that, contrary to such instructions as well as contrary to the terms of achild care service plan that he had signed, he was alone with the child on "numerous" occasions.He also acknowledged continued consumption of alcohol. The statutory standard of neglect wasmet by the requisite preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f][i]; § 1046 [b] [i]; Nicholson vScoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368 [2004]; Matter of Viveca AA., 51 AD3d 1072, 1072 [2008]; Matter of Mary MM., 38 AD3d956, 957 [2007]).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Kane and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders areaffirmed, without costs.