| Matter of Dashawn W. (Antoine N.—Ronnelle B.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00247 [91 AD3d 505] |
| Jnury 17, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Dashawn W. and Others, Children Alleged to beAbused.Antoine N., Appellant; Ronnelle B., Respondent; Administration for Children's Services,Respondent. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Deborah A. Brenner of counsel), forAdministration for Children's Services, respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney forthe children.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or aboutOctober 4, 2010, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent father committed actsconstituting severe abuse, found that petitioner Administration for Children's Services (ACS) isexcused from making diligent efforts to reunite respondent father with his son, Jayquan N.,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Family Court properly determined, in light of this Court's prior determination that there wasclear and convincing evidence that the child Jayquan N. was "severely abused" as that term isdefined by Social Services Law § 384-b (8) (a) (i) (see Matter of Dashawn W. [Antoine N.], 73 AD3d 574 [2010],lv dismissed 16 NY3d 767 [2011]), that such "[a]ggravated circumstances" (Family CtAct § 1012 [j]) excused ACS from exercising diligent efforts to reunite the father with thechild because such efforts would be detrimental to the best interests of the child and are unlikelyto be successful in the foreseeable future (Family Court Act § 1039-b [b] [1]; seeMatter of Marino S., 100 NY2d 361 [2003]; Matter of Stephiana UU., 66 AD3d 1160, 1165 [2009]).
We reject the father's attempt to characterize the Family Court's proceedings conductedpursuant to this Court's remand as a wholly distinct and separate hearing. The Family Court'sproceeding constituted a continuation of the prior fact-finding hearing in light of this Court'sclarification on an issue of law (see 73 AD3d at 575). Moreover, the father's argumentthat Family Court exceeded its authority by failing to make a reasonable efforts findingsimultaneously with a severe abuse finding is also unavailing and, in any event, is precluded[*2]under the law of the case doctrine since it was raised andrejected on the prior appeal.
We have considered the father's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.Concur—Tom, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.