| Matter of Amber Gold J. (Vanessa J.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07639 [88 AD3d 1001] |
| October 25, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Amber Gold J. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Vanessa J. et al., Appellants. |
—[*1]
Catherine S. Bridge, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant Marvin J. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein andSharyn Rootenberg of counsel), for petitioner-respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara Steckler and Susan Clement of counsel), Attorneyfor the Child.
In a child neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, aslimited by her brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, QueensCounty (Richroath, J.), dated March 5, 2010, as, after a fact-finding hearing, found that sheneglected the subject child, and the father separately appeals, as limited by his brief, from somuch of the same order of fact-finding as found that he neglected the subject child.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Although the subject child was returned to the care and custody of the parents while theappeal was pending, since the adjudication of neglect " 'constitutes a permanent and significantstigma that might indirectly affect the appellant's status in future proceedings,' " the parents'respective appeals from the order of fact-finding are not academic (Matter of Ndeye D. [Benjamin D.], 85AD3d 1026, 1027 [2011], quoting Matter of Daqwuan G., 29 AD3d 694, 695 [2006]; see Matter of Alanie H., 83 AD3d1066, 1067 [2011]; Matter of KevinM.H. [Kenneth H.], 76 AD3d 1015, 1016 [2010]). Where the Family Court isconfronted primarily with issues of credibility, its factual findings must be accorded great weighton appeal (see Matter of Andrew B.[Deborah B.], 73 AD3d 1036 [2010]; Matter of Faith J., 47 AD3d 630 [2008];Matter of Michael M., 39 AD3d550 [2007]; Matter of Angel MarieL., 5 AD3d 773, 774 [2004]).
The finding of neglect against the mother was supported by a preponderance of the evidencewhich demonstrated that the subject child's physical, mental, or emotional condition wasimpaired or was in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the mother's paranoid[*2]behavior and mental illness (see Family Ct Act§ 1012 [f]; Matter of Andrew B. [Deborah B.], 73 AD3d at 1036-1037; Matterof Faith J., 47 AD3d 630 [2008]; Matter of Mollye S., 28 AD3d 487, 487-488 [2006]; Matter ofAngel Marie L., 5 AD3d at 773-774). In addition, the evidence demonstrated that the fatherknew or should have known about the mother's behavior and mental illness, and he failed to takenecessary steps to protect the subject child (see Matter of Miyani M. [George T.], 4AD3d 430, 431 [2004]; Matter of Lewis Y., 293 AD2d 684, 684 [2002]).
The mother's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before thisCourt. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Lott, JJ., concur.