| Matter of Patricia B. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03167 [61 AD3d 861] |
| April 21, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Patricia B., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Nassau County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Mona H., Appellant. (ProceedingNo. 1.) In the Matter of Shonta S., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Nassau County Departmentof Social Services, Respondent; Mona H., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of DavidS., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Nassau County Department of Social Services, Respondent;Mona H., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Joshua G., a Child Alleged to beNeglected. Nassau County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Mona H., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 4.) |
—[*1] Lorna B. Goodman, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Karen Huston of counsel), forrespondent. [*2]Debra Bloom, Plainview, N.Y., attorney for thechildren.
In four related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the motherappeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an amended order of disposition of the FamilyCourt, Nassau County (Marks, J.), dated May 24, 2007, as, upon a fact-finding order of the samecourt (Zimmerman, J.) dated February 21, 2007, finding that the mother had neglected thechildren, adjudicated that she neglected the children, granted a final order of supervision, anddirected that the mother shall not permit the children to be in the presence of their relative PrinceB. at any time except for therapeutic counseling. The appeal from the amended order ofdisposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.
Ordered that the amended order of disposition is modified, on the law, by adding a provisionthereto directing that the duration of the final order of supervision and the order of protectionshall be limited to one year, unless extended upon a hearing and for good cause shown; as somodified, the amended order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
The determination of the Family Court that the mother neglected the subject children wassupported by a preponderance of evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f]; §1046 [b] [i]; Nicholson v Scoppetta,3 NY3d 357, 368 [2004]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1, 3 [1985]). "[A] parenthas neglected his or her child where that parent allows the child to be harmed or placed insubstantial risk of harm. The parent must, by willful omission, fail to protect the child and as aconsequence places the child in imminent danger of sexual abuse" (Matter of Krystin M.,294 AD2d 577, 577 [2002]; see Matter of Christina P., 275 AD2d 783, 784 [2000]).
The nonhearsay evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing established that the mother wasaware of a prior sexual assault committed by one of her sons against one of the children. Byallowing that son to live in the family home with the children, the mother "demonstrated afundamental defect in [her] understanding of the duties and obligations of parenthood andcreated an atmosphere detrimental to the physical, mental and emotional well-being of the[children]" (Matter of Selena J., 35AD3d 610, 611 [2006]; see Matterof Alexis C., 27 AD3d 646, 647-648 [2006]; Matter of Krystin M., 294 AD2d577, 578 [2002]).
However, the Family Court erred in failing to place a time limit on the supervision imposedin the amended order of disposition. Family Court Act § 1057 provides, among otherthings, that the duration of such supervision "shall be for an initial period of no more than oneyear and the court may at the expiration of that period, upon a hearing and for good cause shown,make successive extensions of such supervision of up to one year each." Furthermore, "under theplain language of Family Court Act § 1056 (1) and (4), it is only where the person is not arelative, 'by blood or marriage,' and is not a member of the child's household at the time of thedisposition that the duration of an order of protection may extend to the child's 18th birthday"(Matter of Andrew Y., 44 AD3d1063, 1064 [2007]; see Matter ofSheena D., 8 NY3d 136 [2007]; Matter of Collin H., 28 AD3d 806, 809-810 [2006]). Accordingly,we modify the amended order of disposition to the extent of limiting the period of supervision toone year, unless extended upon a hearing and for good cause shown (see Matter of AmandaSS., 284 AD2d 588, 589 [2001]; Matter of Michael S., 175 AD2d 837, 838 [1991]).Skelos, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.