| Matter of Jamiar W. (Malipeng W.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04689 [84 AD3d 1386] |
| May 31, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Jamiar W. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Malipeng W., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter ofJaylin Jacob W. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Malipeng W., Appellant, etal., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Sharyn Rootenberg of counsel;Sana Hussain on the brief), for petitioner-respondent. Geanine Towers, Brooklyn, N.Y., Attorney for the Children.
In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, themother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a fact-finding order of the Family Court,Queens County (Tally, J.), dated June 8, 2010, as, after a hearing, found that she had neglectedthe children.
Ordered that the fact-finding order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
The appeal from the portion of the order which found that the mother had neglected the childJaylin Jacob W. has not been rendered academic by the mother's subsequent execution of asurrender of that child for adoption, since the finding of neglect constitutes a permanent andsignificant stigma that might indirectly affect the mother's status in future proceedings (seeMatter of Armani KK. [Deborah KK.], 81 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2011], lv denied 16NY3d 711 [2011]; Matter of Albert Francis B., 66 AD3d 769 [2009]; see generallyMatter of Ifeiye O., 53 AD3d 501 [2008]; Matter of Daqwuan G., 29 AD3d 694[2006]).
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court correctly found, by a preponderance ofthe evidence, that she neglected her child Jamiar W. (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b][i]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1, 3 [1985]; Matter of Daniel R. [Lucille R.],70 AD3d 839, 841 [2010]). Shortly after birth, Jamiar was diagnosed with hydrocephalus (i.e.,excess fluid in the brain), requiring the insertion of a shunt [*2]and regularly scheduled follow-up appointments with a neurologist,neurosurgeon, and a pediatrician. The record reveals that the mother failed to either schedule orparticipate in these required appointments (see Matter of Tommy A., 201 AD2d 970[1994]). The mother's failure to provide the child with adequate medical care placed him inimminent danger of impairment to his physical condition (see Matter of Isaac J. [JoyceJ.], 75 AD3d 506 [2010]; Matter of Shawndel M., 33 AD3d 1006 [2006]).
Additionally, the Family Court correctly found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that themother neglected her child Jaylin Jacob, Jamiar's twin brother (see Family Ct Act §1046 [b] [i]). In April 2007, when he was only two years old, Jaylin Jacob was admitted toMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan (hereinafter the hospital) for treatment ofacute myelocytic leukemia. At a hearing, the mother testified that, even though Jamiar was livingwith his paternal grandmother at the time, she visited Jaylin Jacob only about once per week.Additionally, because of her inconsistent visitation, the mother was unable to participate indischarge training, resulting in the retention of Jaylin Jacob at the hospital for three months morethan was medically necessary. Consequently, the mother neglected the physical, emotional, andmental needs of Jaylin Jacob by failing to regularly visit and participate in the discharge training(see Matter of Krewsean S., 273 AD2d 393 [2000]; Matter of Faridah W., 180AD2d 451 [1992]).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Belen andRoman, JJ., concur.