| Matter of Tyler C. (Andrea G.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02386 [82 AD3d 1093] |
| March 22, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Tyler C. Suffolk County Department of SocialServices, Respondent; Andrea G., Appellant et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matterof Matthew M. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Andrea G.,Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent. Heather A. Fig, Bayport, N.Y., Attorney for the Children.
In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, themother appeals from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County(Tarantino, Jr., J.), dated September 10, 2009, as, upon a fact-finding order of the same courtdated August 6, 2009, made after a hearing, finding that she had neglected the subject children,placed Tyler C. in the custody of the child's natural father and Matthew M. in the custody of hismaternal grandparents under the supervision of the Suffolk County Department of SocialServices until the completion of the next permanency hearing. The appeal from the order ofdisposition brings up for review the fact-finding order dated August 6, 2009.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed Tyler C. in thecustody of the child's natural father and Matthew M. in the custody of his maternal grandparentsunder the supervision of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services until the completionof the next permanency hearing is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and itis further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs ordisbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed Tyler C. in the custody [*2]of the child's natural father and Matthew M. in the custody of hismaternal grandparents under the supervision of the Suffolk County Department of SocialServices until the completion of the next permanency hearing is dismissed as academic since,subsequent to the order appealed from, the Family Court issued an order granting the petition ofTyler C.'s natural father seeking custody of both children pursuant to Family Court Act article 6.Therefore, any corrective measures which the Family Court might have taken with respect to thatpart of the order appealed from would have no practical effect (see Matter of Lateesha J.,252 AD2d 503 [1998]; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Anne F., 225 AD2d620 [1996]; Matter of Catherine W. v Donald W., 166 AD2d 651 [1990]). Theadjudication of neglect, however, constitutes a permanent and significant stigma which mightindirectly affect the mother's status in any future proceedings (see Matter of Daniel W., 56 AD3d 483, 484 [2008]; Matter ofSal D., 307 AD2d 261, 262 [2003]; Matter of H. Children, 276 AD2d 485, 486[2000]). Therefore, the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as brings up for reviewthe determination that the mother neglected her children is not academic (see Matter ofDaniel W., 56 AD3d at 484; Matter of Sal D., 307 AD2d at 262; Matter of H.Children, 276 AD2d at 486).
The petitioner established, by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act§ 1046 [b] [i]), that the mother's course of conduct impaired the subject children's physical,mental, or emotional well-being, or placed them in imminent danger of such impairment(see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f]; Matter of Amelia W. [Gloria D.W.], 77 AD3d 841 [2010]; Matter of Devontay M., 56 AD3d561 [2008]; Matter of Susan B., 264 AD2d 478 [1999]; see also Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3NY3d 357 [2004]; Matter ofAngelique L., 42 AD3d 569 [2007]; Matter of Christopher B., 26 AD3d 431 [2006]). Accordingly, theFamily Court properly found that she had neglected the subject children. Covello, J.P.,Dickerson, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.