| Matter of Janice G. (Linda H.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01396 [70 AD3d 1210] |
| February 18, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Janice G., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Chemung County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Linda H., Appellant, et al.,Respondent. |
—[*1] David A. Kagle, Chemung County Department of Law-Family Court Division, Elmira, forChemung County Department of Social Services, respondent.
Rose, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), enteredOctober 16, 2008, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family CtAct article 10, to adjudicate respondents' child to be neglected by respondent Linda H.
In 2007, after respondent Linda H. (hereinafter the mother) relinquished care of her daughter(born in 1993) to a relative living two hours away, the child chose instead to reside with herstepmother, ran away from that home twice, became the subject of a person in need ofsupervision petition and was placed with petitioner. In 2008, petitioner commenced thisproceeding against, among another, the mother alleging that her failure to adequately plan for thecare of her child constituted neglect. Following fact-finding and dispositional hearings, FamilyCourt found the child to be neglected within the meaning of Family Ct Act § 1012,ordered continued placement with petitioner and imposed extensive conditions upon the motherin its dispositional plan. The mother now appeals.[*2]
The record amply reflects the mother's unequivocal andcontinuing desire to have no contact with, or responsibility for, her child. A caseworker testifiedthat the mother failed to cooperate after the child was placed with petitioner, specificallyrefusing to visit with the child, learn about her problems in school or participate in the child'smental health counseling. Most revealing was the testimony that the mother had stated that shedid not care what happened to the child, wanted the state to deal with the child and had no intentto fulfill her parental obligations. The evidence further showed that this conduct contributed tothe child's depression, suicidal inclinations and admission to a residential treatment center. Inlight of Family Court's opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses, we conclude thatthere is a sound and substantial basis for its finding that the child was in imminent danger ofimpairment due to the mother's failure to exercise a minimum degree of care (see Matter of Rebecca KK., 51 AD3d1086, 1087 [2008]; Matter ofKrista LL., 46 AD3d 1209, 1210 [2007]; Matter of Heidi CC., 270 AD2d 528,530 [2000]).
Finally, to the extent that Family Court failed to state the grounds for its disposition in theorder of disposition itself (see Family Ct Act § 1052 [b] [i]), we find the defect tobe technical and harmless (see Matter of Nichole L., 213 AD2d 750, 752-753 [1995],lv denied 86 NY2d 701 [1995]). "[T]he record is clear that Family Court considered therelevant statutory factors and made the appropriate findings which provide an adequate basis forintelligent appellate review" (Matter of Rachel G., 185 AD2d 382, 383 [1992]; seeMatter of Stephani FF., 296 AD2d 606, 607 [2002]).
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order isaffirmed, without costs.