| Matter of Kevin M.H. (Kenneth H.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06633 [76 AD3d 1015] |
| September 21, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Kevin M.H., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Kenneth H., Appellant. (ProceedingNo. 1.) In the Matter of Phoebe K.H., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Suffolk CountyDepartment of Social Services, Respondent; Kenneth H., Appellant. (Proceeding No.2.) |
—[*1] Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), forrespondent. Glenn Gucciardo, Northport, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the fatherappeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County(Tarantino, Jr., J.), dated December 18, 2009, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that heneglected the subject children and, inter alia, placed him under the supervision of the SuffolkCounty Department of Social Services until May 10, 2010.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as placedthe father under the supervision of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services until May10, 2010, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, withoutcosts or disbursements.
The appeal from that portion of the order of fact-finding and disposition which placed thefather under the supervision of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services until May 10,2010, must be dismissed as academic because that portion of the order expired by its own terms(see Matter of Andrew Y., 44 AD3d1063, 1064 [2007]; Matter ofAmber C., 38 AD3d 538, 539-540 [2007]; Matter of Daqwuan G., 29 AD3d 694, 695 [2006]). Review of theneglect finding, however, is not academic, since a finding of neglect constitutes a "permanent andsignificant stigma," from which potential future consequences may flow (Matter of AndrewY., 44 AD3d at 1064; see Matter of Amber C., 38 AD3d at 539-540; Matter ofDaqwuan G., 29 AD3d at 695).[*2]
The petitioner established, by a preponderance of theevidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]), that the father's course of conduct,which included verbal abuse of the nonrespondent mother in the presence of the children, makingnumerous unfounded allegations of maltreatment against the mother and her boyfriend, and otherobstreperous behavior, impaired the subject children's mental or emotional well-being, or placedthem in imminent danger of such impairment (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f]; Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d357 [2004]; Matter of DanielD., 57 AD3d 444 [2008]; Matter of Catherine KK., 280 AD2d 732 [2001]).Accordingly, the Family Court properly found that the father neglected the subject children.
The father's remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Leventhal andChambers, JJ., concur.