| Matter of Lisbeth H. (Noemy H.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03064 [83 AD3d 836] |
| April 12, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Lisbeth H., a Child Alleged to be Abused and/orNeglected. Nassau County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Noemy H., Appellant, etal., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Christina R., a Child Alleged to beNeglected. Nassau County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Noemy H., Appellant, etal., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] John Ciampoli, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Gerald R. Podlesak of counsel), forrespondent. Jan Murphy, Huntington, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In related child neglect and abuse proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, themother appeals, as limited by her brief, (1) from so much of a fact-finding order of the FamilyCourt, Nassau County (Greenberg, J.), dated June 19, 2009, as, after a fact-finding hearing, uponfinding that Ramon R. sexually abused Lisbeth H. and derivatively neglected Christina R.,determined that she neglected Lisbeth H. and Christina R. by failing to protect them from RamonR., and (2) from so much of an order of disposition of the same court dated October 5, 2009, as,after a dispositional hearing, placed her under the supervision of the Nassau County Departmentof Social Services and directed her to attend counseling with the children as directed by theNassau County Department of Social Services until October 4, 2010.
Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as the fact-finding order was superseded by the order of disposition and isbrought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the mother underthe supervision of the Nassau County Department of Social Services and ordered her to attendcounseling with the children as directed by the Nassau County Department of Social Services isdismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,[*2]
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofaras appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the mother under thepetitioner's supervision and directed that she attend counseling with the children during theperiod of supervision must be dismissed as academic because the period of supervision hasexpired (see Matter of Daniel W.,56 AD3d 483, 484 [2008]; Matterof Derek P., 43 AD3d 938 [2007]; Matter of Jonathan W., 17 AD3d 374, 375 [2005]; Matter of SalD., 307 AD2d 261, 262 [2003]). The adjudication of neglect, however, constitutes apermanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect the mother's status in any futureproceedings. Therefore, the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as brings up forreview the finding that the mother neglected the subject children is not academic (see Matter of Crystal S. [Elaine S.], 74AD3d 823, 824 [2010]; Matter of Daniel W., 56 AD3d at 484; Matter of Derek P., 43 AD3d 938[2007]; Matter of Jonathan W., 17AD3d 374, 375 [2005]).
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's finding that she neglected thechildren because she failed to protect them from Ramon R., who had sexually abused Lisbeth H.,is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i][B]; § 1046 [b] [1]; Matter ofAmelia W. [Gloria D.W.], 77 AD3d 841 [2010]; Matter of Devontay M., 56 AD3d 561 [2008]; Matter of Rakim W., 17 AD3d376 [2005]). Angiolillo, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Sgroi, JJ., concur.