| Matter of Amelia W. (Gloria D.W.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07553 [77 AD3d 841] |
| October 19, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Amelia W., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Gloria D.W., Appellant, et al., Respondent.(Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Anessa W., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administrationfor Children's Services, Respondent; Gloria D.W., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No.2.) In the Matter of Ashante W., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Gloria D.W., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No.3.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Ronald E. Sternberg and JulieSteiner of counsel), for petitioner-respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Amy Hausknecht of counsel),attorney for the children.
In three related neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the motherappeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding of the Family Court,Richmond County (DiDomenico, J.), dated August 25, 2009, as, after a hearing, found that sheneglected the subject children.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
Contrary to the contention of the attorney for the children, the mother's appeal has not beenrendered academic on the ground that the period of suspension, set forth in a subsequentdispositional order suspending judgment, has lapsed. Since the dispositional order was silent asto the legal consequences of the expiration of the period of suspension, the judgment did notexpire by operation of law (see Matterof Jonathan B., 5 AD3d 477 [2004]; Matter of MN, 16 Misc 3d 499, 508-509 [2007]).
The Family Court's determination that the mother neglected the subject children wassupported by a preponderance of the evidence. A "neglected child" is defined by the FamilyCourt Act as one "whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is inimminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of [the] parent . . .to exercise a minimum degree of care . . . in providing the child with propersupervision or guardianship" (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). "Significantly, actualinjury or impairment is not required, and a finding of neglect may be made provided apreponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the child is in imminent danger of injury orimpairment" (Matter of SalvatoreC., 6 AD3d 431, 432 [2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Family CtAct § 1012 [f] [i]; Matter of Katie R., 251 AD2d 698, 699 [1998]).
Here, the credible evidence demonstrated that, although the mother was aware of an incidentin which her boyfriend had inflicted excessive corporal punishment upon the children AshanteW. and Anessa W. in the presence of the child Amelia W., which had resulted in orders ofprotection directing the boyfriend to stay away from the children and directing the mother to stayout of the home that she and the children had previously occupied with the boyfriend, the mothermoved herself and the children back into the boyfriend's home approximately three weeks afterthe incident. Under these circumstances, the Family Court properly determined that the motherneglected the children by failing to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing them withproper supervision or guardianship, thereby exposing them to an imminent risk of harm by herboyfriend (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Devontay M., 56 AD3d 561 [2008]; Matter of Rakim W., 17 AD3d376 [2005]; Matter of Susan B., 264 AD2d 478, 478-479 [1999]; Matter ofJessica D., 208 AD2d 626 [1994]). Prudenti, P.J., Angiolillo, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.